Controversial ‘elements 
in Lucretius 
By George Pp. Eckman 





7B 4S 183 














ΠΑ lee 


ἘΔ, 


τ 
4% 


eet 



















ve 


᾿ς, Sx 
ub akg 


2 
ei ae 







































https://archive.org/details/controversia 





Controversial Elements in Lucretius 


A THESIS - 


FOR THE 


Doctorate in Philosophy 


ἂς ἔοι 


GEORGE P. ECKMAN 


APPROVED BY THE FACULTY OF. THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
OF THE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, £897 


New York 


1899 


Ei μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν 
καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου, μή ποτε πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἡ τι, ἔτι τε τὸ 
μὴ κατανοεῖν τοὺς ὅρους τῶν ἀλγηδόνων καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυ- 
μιῶν, οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας. 
᾿Εἰπικούρου Κύριαι Δόξαι, XI. Diogenes Laertius, X, 142. 


Printed for the author by 
Charles B. Jackson, 
New York. 


597 
L64E3 


CONTENTS. 


: Table of Contents. 
INTRODUCTION. 


& CONTEMPORARY INTEREST IN EPICUREANISM. 


Character of the period. Causes of the apparent neglect of 
Lucretius by his contemporaries. — Influence of Epicureanism 
upon cultivated Romans. Reasons for Cicero’s comparative 
silence regarding Lucretius. Recognition of the poet by 
-jater generations. 


(BY A Pretiminary Question. 


To what extent did Lucretius pursue original investigations ? 
The poet’s devotion to Epicurus. Evidences of servile imita- 
tion. Marks of independent treatment of physical pheno- 
mena. No extreme position tenable. Divisions of the present 
discussion. 


I. PuirrosopHers With Wuom Lucretius ConTenpDs AMICABLY. 
Respects for early physicists. The main contention, 


I. Empedocles. Object of Lucretius’ admiration. Internal 
evidence that Lucretius studied the works of Empedocles. 
Hallier’s proofs. Similarity of literary style. Rhetorical 
imitations. Doctrinal agreement. Resemblances in explana- 
tions of physical phenomena. Unquestioned indebtedness of 
Lucretius. Hostility to Empedocles as representative physi- 
cist designating one or more substances primordial matter. 
Various points of conflict. Void and motion. - Incompetent 
primordia. Fallibility of the senses. Mortality of the soul. 
Teleology. 


2. Anaxagoras. Evidence of high esteem of Epicurus for 
Anaxagoras. Common ground occupied by Anaxagoras and 
Atomists. General lines of divergence. Sympathy of Lucre- 
tius with Anaxagoras. Instances in proof. The doctrine of 
the homoeomeria the real issue between Lucretius and Anaxa- 
goras. The theory expounded. Objections of Lucretius. 
Void ignored. Infinite divisibility of body. Defective prz- 
mordia, . Secondary qualities in primitive matter. J/inima. 
A pair of dilemmas. 


-ον ΤᾺ A freA oO» 


2 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


3. Democritus. The obligation of Epicurus to the philoso- 
pher of Abdera. Ingratitude of the former. The more 
commendable spirit of Lucretius. Eulogistic lines. Traces 
of the pressure of Democritus upon Lucretius. Harmony of 
general principles. The doctrine of emanations. The sum- 
mum bonum. The sexual passion. Earthquakes. Imitdations 
of Democritus. The extent of Lucretius’ acquaintance with 
his writings. Chief doctrinal disagreement. Atomic declina- 
tion. Free-will. Arguments of Epicurus and _ Lucretius. 
Minor occasions of controversy. Infinity of number and 
shapes of atoms. Constitution of the soul. Origin of verbal _ 
designations. The rising of the Nile. The gods, 


Il. PuitosopHers TowarRpD Wuom Lucretius Is HOostTILe. 


The censoriousness of Epicurus emulated by Lucretius. 


I. Heraclitus. Alone denounced by name. Taunt of ob- 
scurity. Avowed reason for the animosity of Lucretius to- 
ward Heraclitus the latter’s assertion that fire is the original 
essence from which everything has been derived. Order of 
Lucretius’ arguments. Is the poet’s treatment of Heraclitus 
just? Character of his elemental fire. Hypothesis of conden- 
sation and rarefaction. Void eliminated. Change by extinc- 
tion. Doctrine of the senses. Transmutation of primitive 
matter. © Heraclitus and the Stoics. 


2. The Stoics. Antagonism of Lucretius an inherited pas- 
sion. Mutual calumnies of the Stoics and Epicureans. 

Irrepressible conflict on the subject of nature. Specific 
points of eontroversy. Properties and accidents. Corporeal- 
ity and reality. Elemental fire. The structure and course 
of the universe. Infinity of space and matter. Theory of 
centripetal force. Immortality and divinity of the world. 
Cosmic systems. The world as a living organism. Destrule- 
tibility of the world. Theological positions. .The character 
and functions of deity. Stoic ideas of creation and provi- 
dence incompatible with the supreme repose and happiness 
of the gods. Likewise disproved by the imperfections of 
creation. The desire to deliver men from the fear of divine 
interference the basic reason for Lucretius’ argument against 
Providence, Only valid ground for scientific study. Final 
cause denied. True philosophy of the gods. Myth of 
Kybele. Epicureans and Stoics in relation to popular re- 
ligion. Stern denunciation of prevalent soe sicita τ. Ap- 
parent inconsistency of Lucretius. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 3 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


OF THE CHIEF WORKS CONSULTED IN THIS DISCUSSION. 


Diocenes Laertius—De Vitis Philosophorum, Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1895. 


Cicrro, Marcus Tuttius—De Na/ura Deorum, De Finibus, etc., 


Teubner, Leipsig, 1894. 


Ritrek et Pretter—Aisforia Philosophiae Graecae, 7th Edition, 
Gothae, 1888. 


Munro, H. A. J.—Z! Lucrett Cari De Rerum Natura, Text, Notes, 
etc., 4th Ed., Cambridge, 1893. 

ZELLER, FE. —Pre-Socratic Philosophy; Stoics, Epicureans and Scepitics, 
London, 1892. 

ten. Hermann—L£picurea, Leipsig, 1887. 

TrurreL, W. 8.—History of Roman Literature, London, 1873. 

FAIRBANKS, ArtHuR—The First Philosophers of Greece, New 
York, 1898. | 

SELLAR, W. Y.—Roman Poets of the Republic, 3d Edition, Ox- 
ford, 1889. 

Hawes. ~Aemitius—Lucreti Carmina e Fragments E'mpedochs A Jui 
brata, Jena, 1857. | 

Momsen, THEropor—Afiisiory of Rome. New York, 1875. 


Masson, Joun— The Atomic Theory of Lucretius, London, 1884. 


ow ee 


ee OTe. Se 


CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


CORRIGENDA. 


. 8, note 2, read plurimis instead of plurimus; consulere not considere. 


9, line 4, read Catius [nsuber. 
26, line 26, read καίτοι instead of καὶτοι. 
29, line 13, read ᾿Ἐἰμπεδοκλεῖ; ἀναγκαῖον for ἀναγκαῖον. 
30, line 3, read gueunt instead of guent. 
31, line 9, read στείροις instead of στεῖροις. 
line 22, read γυμνοὶ instead of ypuvol. 
line 23, read πενητεύοντα instead of mevnrevovra. 
32, line 22, read φησὶ instead of φηοὶ. 
38, line 27, read τὸ ὁμοιομερές instead of τὸ ὁμοιομερεῖα, 
46, line 27, read deprauare instead of depruare. 
68, line 10, read βίβλοις instead of βίβλιοις. 
75, line 7, read πρῶτον instead of πρῶτων. 
81, line 1, read munguam instead of nmemguam,; remove period after 
Chrysippam. 
line 2, read vocadat instead of vocebal. 
82, note 2, read Praefatio instead of Prefato. 


. 90, line 18, read τούτων instead of τούων. 
. 103, line 11, read πρόληψις instead of πρόληφις, ᾿ 


CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS 


IN 


LUCRETIUS, 





INTRODUCTION. 
CONTEMPORARY INTEREST IN EPICUREANISM. 


Ir cannot be denied that the poem of Lucretius failed to awaken any 
marked interest until long after its publication. The almost unbroken 
silence of his contemporaries regarding him is significant of the com- 
parative indifference with which his production was received. The 
reasons for this neglect are various and not far to seek. In the first 
place the moment was inopportune for the appearance of such a work. 
‘«Tt was composed in that hapless time when the rule of the oligarchy 
had been overthrown and that of Caesar had not yet been established, 
in the sultry years during which the outbreak of the civil war was 
awaited with long and painful suspense.’ The poet betrays his sol- 
icitude for the welfare of his country at this crisis in the introduction 
of his work, in which he invokes the aid of Venusin persuading Mars 
to command peace—— 


Liffice ut interea fera moenera militiat 
Per maria ac terras omnis sopita quiescant’*— 


and acknowledges that his attention is diverted from literary labors by 
the exigencies of the state : 

Nam neque nos agere hoc patriat tempore iniquo 

Possumus aequo animo nec Memmi clara propago 

Talibus in rebus communi desse saluti.* 


Munro believes these lines were written toward the close of 695, 
when Caesar as consul had formed his coalition with Pompey and 
when there was almost a reign of terror.‘ ‘The reflection of a state of 





1 Mommsen, //7st. Rome, IV, p. 698 (Eng. Tr.). 
M3, 20... 30. 

ΔΈ 41-43. 

* Munro, Lucretius, 11. p. 30. 


6 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


tumult and peril is equally obvious in the opening verses of the second 
book, where the security of the contemplative life is contrasted with 
the turbulence of a political and military career.’ Particularly signifi- 
cant are the lines : 


Sit non forte tuas legiones per loca campt 
Fervere cum videas belli simulacra cients, 
Subsidits magnis et ecum vit constabilitas, 
Ornatasque armis statuas parilerque animatas, 
His tibi tum rebus timefactae religiones 
Effugiunt animo pavide ; morhsque timores 
Tum vacuum pectus lincunt curaque solutum, 
Fervere cum videas classem lateque vagart.” 


It can readily be appreciated that a period of such fermentation 
and alarm would afford opportunity for philosophic study to those 
‘alone who were able to retire from political excitements to private 
leisure and quiet. Moreover the very characteristics of the Epicurean 
philosophy would recommend it chiefly to persons of this description. ἡ 
Participation in public life was distinctly discouraged by the school 
of Epicurus, who regarded the realm of politics as a world of tumult 
and trouble, wherein happiness—the chief end of life—was almost, if 
not quite, impossible. They counselled entering the arena of public 
affairs only as an occasional and disagreeable necessity, or as a pos- 
sible means of allaying the discontent of those to whom the quiet of 
a private life was not wholly satisfactory.* Such instruction, though 
phrased in the noble hexameters of a Lucretius, was scarcely calculated 
to enjoy immediate popularity in the stirring epoch of a fast hurrying 
revolution. * 





1Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 290. 

211, 40-47. ‘*Caesar after his consulship remained with his army for three 
months before Rome, and was bitterly attacked by Memmius. Does Lucretius here 
allude to Caesar?”’ Munro, II, p. 122. 

3 Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 491, 3, 6. 

Ὁ ΤΕ Τῇ consequence of his mode of thought and writing being so averse to his own 
time and directed to a better future, the poet received little attention in his own 
age.” Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit, 1, 201 (Eng. Tr.). ‘+ It (Epicureanism) arose in a 
state of society and under circumstances widely diffcrent from the social. ard 
political condition of the last phase of the Roman'Republic.”” Sellar, Roman Poets 
of the Republic, p. 357- 


INTRODUCTION. . tj 


A somewhat ingenious, but unsuccessful, attempt has been made to 
account for the indifference with which Lucretius was treated on the 
ground of his assault upon the doctrine of the future life. It has 
been suggested that as the enmity of the Christian writers was early 
called down upon his head for this cause, he was likewise whelmed 
‘«<under a conspiracy of silence on the part of his Roman contempo- 
raries and successors” for the same reason." But so general was the 
skepticism of his age on this question, that it is scarcely credible that 
the publication of his views could have seriously scandalized the cul- 
tured classes who read his lines. The same judgment will hold true 
with reference to the entire attitude of Lucretius toward the tra- 
ditional religion. It is a sufficient answer to the theory that his in- 
fidelity created antipathy toward him to record the fact that Julius 
Caesar, than whom no more pronounced free-thinker lived in his day, 
was, despite his skepticism, pontifex maximus of the Roman common- 
wealth, and did not hesitate to declare in the presence of the Senate 
that the immortality of the soul was a vain delusion.” That he rep- 
resented in these heretical opinions the position of many of the fore- 
most persons of the period is the testimony of contemporary literature. 

Shall we not find the better reason for the apparent neglect of 
Lucretius in the era immediately following the issue of his poem in 
the fact that there was no public at this juncture for the study 
of Greek philosophy clothed in the Latin language? Cicero, who de- 
voted himself with the zeal of a patriot to the creation of a philosoph- 
ical literature in his native tongue, complained of the scant courtesy 
paid to his efforts. Mon eram nescius, Brute, cum, quae summts in- 
gents exquisitaque doctrina philosophit Graeco sermone tractavissent, ea 
Latinis literts mandaremus, fore ut hic noster labor in varias reprehen- 
stones incurreret. Nam quibusdam, et ws quidem non admodum indoctis, 
totum hoc displicél, philosophart. Quidam autem non tam id reprehendunt, 
si remissius agatur, sed tantum studium tamque multam operam ponendam 
in eo non arbitrabantur. Erunt etiam, et quidem eruditi Graects litteris, 
contemnentes Latinas, qui se dicant in Graects legendis operam malle 
consumere. Postremo aliquos futuros suspicor, qui me ad alias litteras vocent, 





1 This is the view advanced by R. T. Tyrell of the University of Dublin. See 
his Latin Poetry, p. 74, (Houghton, Mifflin & Co., N. Y., 1895). 
? Merivale, History of the Romans, Ul, p. 354. 


8 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


genus hoc scribendi, etst sit elegans, personae tamen et dignitatis esse 
negent.' Yet this work, as he explains in his De Dzvvinatione,’ 
was undertaken with the commendable purpose of benefitting 
his countrymen. He anticipated with delight the advantages 
which would accrue to them when his researches were com- 
plete. Magnificum ilud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum, ul 
Graecis de philosophia litteris non egeant.* And later he reaped his re- 
ward in an awakened interest in the subjects of his studious inquiries. 
But he was compelled in the beginning to cultivate a sentiment in 
behalf of those investigations. Lucretius addressed himself to an un- 
sympathetic public, and was likewise required to wait for applause 
until a more appreciative generation rose up to do him honor. 

Yet it must not be supposed that Epicureanism exercised a feeble 
influence over the thought of cultivated Romans in this period of 
their history. ‘The very theme which engaged the genius of Lucretius 
had also employed the energies of predecessors and contemporaries. 
Among attempts of this character were the De Rerum Natura of 
Egnatius, which appeared somewhat earlier than the work of Lucretius ; 
the Z'impedoclea of Sallustius mentioned by Cicero in the much dis- 
cussed passage relating to Lucretius; and a metrical production en- 
titled De Rerum Natura by Varro.* Commentaries on the principles 
of Epicureanism had also been extant for some time. Chief among 
the authors of such compositions was Amafinius who preceded 
Lucretius by nearly a century. Our knowledge of him: is mainly 
derived from Cicero, who says: C. Amajinius exstittl dicens cutus horis 
editis commota multitudo contulit se ad eam potissimum disciplinam.° 
-Rabirius is also mentioned by the same author as belonging to that 
class of writers, Qui nulla arte adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis vol- 





1De Fintbus, I, τ. 

2 Quaerenti mihi multumque et diu cogitanti, quanam re possem prodesse quam plu- 
rimus, ne quando intermitterem considere retpublicae, nulla maior occurrebat, quam st 
optimarum artium vias traderem mets ctvibus, quod conpluribus tam libris me arbitror 
consecutum. . . . Quod enim munus rei publicae adferre maius meliusve pos- 
sumus, quam st docemus atque erudimus tuventutem? his praesertim moribus atque 
temporibus, guibus ita prolapsa est, etc. 11, 1, 2. 

3 De Divinatione, 11, 2. 

+Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 278. 

5 Acad. I, 2, 5. 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


gart sermone disputant.' Kabirius indulged in a popular treatment 
of philosophy and covered much the same ground as Amafinius. 
Another contributor to the literature of Epicureanism whom Cicero 
records. in no complimentary way is Catius—Catus insuber, Epicur- 
eus, qui nuper est mortuus, quae ile Gargettius et 1am ante Democritus εἴδωλα, 
hic spectra nominat.* 

The interest in this school of philosophy among Romans of the 
time of Lucretius is further apparent in the prominence which cer- 
tain Epicurean teachers attained. Conspicuous among them is Zeno 
the Sidonian, whose lectures Cicero in company with Atticus had at- 
tended on the occasion of his first visit to Athens, 79 to 78 B.C., 
whom he calls the prince of Epicureans in his De Nafura Deorum,’ 
and whose instruction is doubtless liberally embodied in Cicero’s 
discussions of the system of Epicureanism.* Contemporary with 
Zeno was Phaedrus,® who had achieved distinction in Athens and 
Rome, in both of which places Cicero studied under his direction. 
Somewhat later Philodemus® of Gadara appeared in Rome, and is 
mentioned by Cicero as a learned and amiable man. The consider- 
able body of writings bearing his name found in the Volumina Her- 
culanensia’ indicates his position among the philosophic instructors 
of his day. Scyro* a follower of Phaedrus, said to have been the 
teacher of Vergil; Patro* the successor of Phaedrus, who taught in 
Athens ; and Pompilius Andronicus,” the grammarian who gave up his 
profession for the tenets of Epicurus, were eminent also at this period. 

Partly as a result of the activity of these teachers of philosophy, and 
partly on account of the prevailing anxiety to arrive at some satis- 
factory scheme of life, the number of disciples of Epicurus steadily 
increased at this time, and included not a few illustrious names. 





1Tusc. Disp., IV, 6. 

244 Fam., XV, 16, 2. 

31. 21. Cf. Diogenes Laertius, X, 25. 

4 Ritter et Preller, Ast. Phil. Graec., 447, a. 

5Ad Fam., XI\Il, 1. 

®De Fin., Il, 35, 110. 

τ Ritter et Preller, “2.2. Phil. Graec., 447, a. 

84d. Fam., V1. 11. 

"44. Fam., ΧΙΠ 1. Ad Attic, V, 11. 

10 Zeller, Stotcs, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 414, τ. 


IO CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


These are known to us chiefly through the writings of Cicero,’ who 
mentions T. Albutius, Velleius, C. Cassius, the well-known conspirator 
against Caesar, who may himself be classed among those who had 
lost confidence in the gods,’ C. Vibius Pansa, Galbus, L. Piso, the 
patron of Philodemus, and L. Manlius Torquatus. Other notable 
personages are apparently regarded as Epicureans by Cicero, but 
grave doubts have been expressed concerning their real attitude 
toward the school. It is barely possible that Atticus may justly be 
denominated an Epicurean, for he calls the followers of Epicurus 
nostri familiares* and condiscipuli.* But his eclectic spirit would 
seem to. forbid his classification with any single system, and Zeller ® 
feels that neither he nor Asclepiades of Bithynia, a contemporary of 
Lucretius, who resided at Rome and was associated with Epicureans, 
can be regarded as genuine disciples of Epicurus. 

The discussions of the Epicurean philosophy in De Natura Deorum, 
De Finibus and other works of Cicero evince the profound interest he 
had in the school, though his general attitude was one of unfriendli- 
ness. What reason, then, we may ask, can be given for his almost 
uninterrupted silence concerning Lucretius? ‘The only reference we 
have to the poet in all Cicero’s voluminous compositions occurs in a 
letter to his brother Quintus,® four months after the death of Lucretius, 
in which he says, Lucretit poemata, ut scribis ta sunt: multis luminibus 
ingen, mullfae etiam artis; sed cum veneris virum te putabo, st Sallustit 
Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo. ‘These words certainly imply 
that both Marcus and Quintus had read the poem, and many scholars 
accept the statement of Jerome in his additions to the Eusebian 
chronicle—guos Cicero emendavit—as applying to Marcus.’ But if he 
was closely enough identified with the work of Lucretius to edit his 
manuscript, why in those writings wherein ample opportunity was af- 
forded, did not Cicero mention his labors in the field of philosophy ? 





1 Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 414, 3. 

2 Merivale, Hist. Rom., Il, pp. 352, 3. 

oi Pit., Vea, ys 

*Leop., 1,9, 20> 

δ, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 415. 

6Ad Quintum, I, 11. 

7 Munro (II, pp. 2-5) who discusses this question with his usual lucidity, inclines 
to the opinion that Jerome, following Suetonius, has indicated M. T. Cicero as the 


INTRODUCTION. If 


This is a particularly pertinent inquiry in view of the fact that he does 
speak of Amafinius, Rabirius and Catius, as we have already observed, 
and that he devoted so much attention to the discussion of Epicur- 
ean principles. Munro answers this question by declaring that it was 
not Cicero’s custom to quote from contemporaries, numerous as his 
citations are from the older poets and himself; that had he written 
on poetry as he did of philosophy and oratory, Lucretius would have 
undoubtedly occupied a prominent place in the work, and that more 
than once in his philosophical discussions Cicero unquestionably re- 
fers to Lucretius.' Munro is not alone in contending that the liter- 
ary relations between Lucretius and Cicero were more or less intimate. 
Other critics have traced to Cicero’s Arafea important lines in 
Lucretius, while many passages in Cicero closely resemble utterances 
of the poet. Martha quotes several remarkable parallels between De 
Finibus and various lines in Lucretius.” But it is argued on the other 
hand no less vigorously that didactic resemblances prove nothing, ex- 
cept that Lucretius and Cicero wrought from like sources their several 
Latinizations of Greek philosophy. 

And herein there is suggested a possible explanation of Cicero's ap- 
parent indifference to the poet, whether he did him the favor of edit- 
ing his verse or not. Cicero had made an earnest study of Greek 
philosophy long before the poem of Lucretius had been introduced 
to his notice. He had resorted to original authorities for informa- 
tion concerning Epicureanism. Zeno the Sidonian and Philodemus 
of Gadara, as already noted, had supplied him with much material. 
Everywhere in his philosophical works there is evidence that he re- 
garded himself a sort of pioneer in this peculiar field of investigation, 





editor of Lucretius, and that this was the real fact. Sellar, Roman Poets of the 
Republic, pp. 284-6, though suspending judgment does not deny the probability 
that M. T. Cicero performed this favor for Lucretius. Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit., 
I, 201, 2, while expressing doubt concerning the evidence of Cicero’s connection 
with the poem, declares that at any rate his ‘‘ part was not very important, and it 
might almost seem that he was afraid of publishing a work of this kind.’”’ Prof. E. 
G. Sihler, N. Y. University, presents an argument of great force against the prob- 
ability of Cicero’s editorship. See Art. Lucretius and Cicero. Transactions Amer- 
ican Philological Association, Vol. XXVIII, 1897. 

Munro, II, pp. 4, 5. 

2M. Constant Martha, Ze Poeme de Lucrece, quoted in Lee’s Lucretius, p. xiv, 1. 


12 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


and therefore deserving of the pre-eminence therein. He doubtless 
placed no importance upon any Latin writings beside his own which 
treated of this class of Greek culture. Indeed the references which 
he has made to persons engaged in an undertaking similar to his own 
are in noinstance flattering. And Lucretius would only be esteemed 
by him a competitor in the same department of inquiry, who wrote 
in Latin verse instead of Latin prose. 

Keeping these facts in mind the comparative silence of Cicero re- 
garding Lucretius does not seem wholly incompatible with the theory 
of his editorship. He was himself an expositor of Epicurus—and 
that too of the hostile kind. He had ‘‘ popularized the Epicurean 
doctrines in the bad sense ‘of the word,” and had thrown ‘‘a 
ludicrous color over many things which disappear when they are more 
seriously regarded.”"' Yet his opposition to the tenets of Epicurus 
would not preclude him from friendly association with many who 
professed them, and if asked to lend his name to the publication of 
Lucretius’ verses, there could be no reason for withholding it. But 
if his antagonism to Epicureanism would lead him to speak against 
the doctrines of the poem, his admiration for the literary excellences 
of the work, as exhibited in his willingness to stand sponsor for its 
issue, would deter him from adverse criticism. Silence in such a 
case is the best evidence of friendship. 

Mommsen? remarks that ‘‘ Lucretius, although his poetical vigor 
as well as his art was admired by his cultivated contemporaries, yet 
remained—of late growth as he was—-a master without scholars.” 
But with increasing knowledge in what is best in Epicurus and a 
finer taste to appreciate the moral and literary virtues of Lucretius, 
subsequent generations gave ample recognition to the poet. Horace 
and Vergil were greatly influenced by him, particularly the latter, who 
is supposed to refer to Lucretius in the famous lines : 


Fehx qui potuil rerum cognoscere causas, 
Afque metus omnes et tnexorabile fatum, 
Subiectt pedibus strepitumque Acherontis avart.* 





1 Lange, History of Materialism, 1, p. 127 (Eng. Tr.). 
2 Hist. Rome, IV, p. 699. 
ὃ Georgica, 11. 490-2. 


INTRODUCTION. a 


Ovid pronounced words of high eulogy upon him : 


Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucreti 
E-xitio terras cum dabit una dies." 


The persistency of the Epicurean school of philosophy despite perse- 
cution and opposition down to the fourth century A.D. demon- 
strates its marvelous vitality and the almost deathless influence of 
the personality of Epicurus, whose single mind projected its grasp 
upon human thought throughout the whole existence of the sect. 
And not the least important agent in affecting this result, because of 
his almost idolatrous devotion to his master and the persuasive charm 
_ of his lines, was the poet Lucretius. 


A PRELIMINARY QUESTION. 


Before entering specifically upon an examination of the contro- 
versial elements in Lucretius, it will be important to inquire to what 
extent, if at all, the poet may be regarded an independent worker in 
the field he has chosen. One is impressed from the very beginning 
of his study of Lucretius with his profound moral earnestness. He 
is impelled by an absorbing passion to emancipate the human spirit 
from the terrors induced by the fear of death and the tyranny of super- 
stition The constantly recurring application of his doctrines to the 
soul of the convert he hopes to make leads him into frequent rep- 
etitions of his constant aim, and should dissuade the student of 
Lucretius from attaching too much significance to his iterations else- 
where. In the scheme of the poem Epicurus is the savior of man- 
kind, and Lucretius is his prophet. His entire energy seems to be 
devoted to the effort to render intelligible the process of Epicurean- 
ism in delivering men from irrational terrors. It is pertinent, there- 
fore, to inquire whether it 1s probable that a man of such missionary 
zeal, who is consumed with a desire to propagate the theories of his 
master, would go out of his way to study other systems of philosophy. 
-Is it not natural to infer from our knowledge of his characteristics 
that his acquaintance with rival schools of thought would be mainly, 
if not exclusively, derived from a perusal of Epicurus, and that he 
would deal with them from the traditional Epicurean point of view ? 





1 Amor., I, 15. 23. 


14 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


In short are there any evidences that Lucretius engaged in independ- 
ent research, when he undertook his exposition of philosophic 
doctrines ? 

Scholars have arrayed themselves in extreme positions on this 
question. Woltyer' of Groningen represents one leading view, and 
maintains that Lucretius gave himself utterly to the Latinization of 
Epicurus. In support of this theory there are undeniably strong 
declarations in the poem. ‘The exordia of Books III, V, VI, furnish 
ample marks of the almost slavish devotion of Lucretius to his master, 
and the whole poem breathes the same spirit. He professes only to 
imitate the peerless Epicurus : 

Δ᾽ tenebris tanits tam clarum extollere lumen 
Qui primus potuish inlustrans commoda vitae, 
Te sequor, ὁ Gratae gents decus, inque tuis nunc 
Fictla pedum pono pressts vestigia signis, 
Von tla certandt cupidus quam propter amorem 
Quod te imitari aveo.’ 
He sees in him the highest human intelligence : 
Qui genus humanum ingenio superavit et omnis 
Restincxtt, stellas exortus ut aetherius sol.* 
His glory can never fade : 
Cuius et extinct propter divina reperta 
Divolgata vetus iam ad caelum gloria fertur.* 
No honor can be too great for such a man: 
Nam si, ut thsa petit maiestas cognita rerum, 
Dicendum est, deus ille fuit, deus, inclyle Memmi.° 
Hence Lucretius will follow him explicitly : 


Cuius ego ingressus vestigia dum rationes 
Persequor ac doceo dictis, quo quaeque creata 
Foedere sint.® 





1Lucretit philosophia cum fontibus comparata, Groningae, 1897. 
ΤΠ; 1-5. 

3TII, 1043, 4. 

“ὙΠ 0 8, 

PY ar Bs 

°V, 55-7: 


INTRODUCTION. 15 


It is apparent from the whole tenor of his production that Lucretius 
makes no claim to originality, his frequently avowed purpose being 
to disclose the method of Epicurus for the redemption of the race. 


Moreover such a procedure is in perfect accord with the conven- 
tional usages of the Epicurean school, among the disciples of which 
there was mere dogmatic iteration of the original propositions of Ep- 
icurus. The κύριαι δόξαι, quoted by Diogenes Laertius,’ were preserved 
expressly to be stored away in the memory of hisadherents. So con- 
vinced was he of the value of his doctrines that he required not only 
these fundamental aphorisms, but whole summaries of his philosophy 
to be learned by rote.” His last words were: τῶν δογμάτων μεμνῆσθαι. ὅ 
Such was the extravagant honor conferred upon Epicurus by his dis- 
ciples that not only was his birthday observed by them during his 
lifetime, but the twentieth of each month was kept in celebration of 
him and Metrodorus.* Following the exhortation of a master to 
whom he was so deeply attached, Lucretius would be disposed to 
cling tenaciously to the expressed tenets of Epicurus, and would not 
be inclined to venture beyond them. 


This tendency to adhere inflexibly to the teachings of their founder, 
was manifest in the remarkable sterility of production among later 
Epicureans, from the death of the master to the age of Cicero. This 
barrenness is particularly noticeable when contrasted with the fruit- 
fulness of the Stoic school during the same period, as witness the 
names Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Boethus, Panaetius, Posidonius and 
others.° One reason for this unproductiveness lies in the fact that 
Epicurus, while he dogmatically laid down his atomistic physics, had 
at the same time a positive aversion to precise, specific, detailed study 
of natural phenomena, as it is best seen by a close examination of 
the letter to Pythocles, in which he summarily disposes of the 
questions relating to τὰ μετέωρα." A survey of this presentation of the 
Epicurean doctrines on the facts of nature reveals a feeling that 





1Diog. Laer., X, 139-154. 

2Jb., 12, 35, 83, 85, 116. 

37b., 16. 

4 Zeller, Epicureans, Stoics and Sceptics, p. 418, 2. 
5 Ritter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec., 422-26. 

6 Diog. Laer., X, 84. sq. 


16 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


exact scientific knowledge is both impracticable and unnecessary. In 
a given case a variety of reasons may be offered in explanation, and 
the student is at liberty to take his preference.’ Without an earnest 
purpose to study the facts of nature until they disclose the one and 
only interpretation for each phenomenon, there can be no real 
progress in science. The instances are not wanting in which a little 
deeper penetration into these facts of the universe on the part of 
Lucretius would have announced to the world in his day discoveries 
which were reserved to a much later period of time. 

So convinced are some critics that Lucretius made no advance 
upon Epicurus, but contented himself with a servile Latinization of 
his Greek master’s productions, that they even assert he obtained his 
account of the plague at Athens from Epicurus and not from Thu- 
cydides. But from this extreme statement there seems to be reason 
for dissent. Would Epicurus, who was himself an Athenian resident, 
living but a hundred years after Thucydides, misunderstand the 
historian as Lucretius gives evidence of doing? A comparison of 
Thucydides II, 47-54 with Lucretius VI, 1138-1286, will show sev- 
eral instances in which the poet has either wilfully or ignorantly mis- 
represented his model. For example observe the difference between 
this declaration of Thucydides—rév ye ἀκρωτηρίων ἀντίληψις αὐτοῦ 
ἐπεσήμαινε' κατέσκηπτε yap és αἰδοῖα Kal és ἄκρας χεῖρας καὶ πόδας, καὶ πολλοὶ 
στερισκόμενοι τούτων διέφυγον, εἰσὶ δ᾽ of kat τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν «4η the verses 
of Lucretius on the same matter : 

tamen in nervos huic morbus ef arlus 
Lbat et in partis genitalts corporis tpsas. 
Et graviter partim metuentes limina leti 
Vivebant ferro privat parte virile, 
Et manibus sine nonnulli pedibusque manebant 
In vita amen et perdebani lumina partim: 
Usque adeo mortis mortus his incesserat acer.* 


In view of the intense desire of Lucretius to turn to account every 
opportunity to point a moral, is it not possible that he purposely 





1Compare the statements of Epicurus recorded by Diogenes Laertius, X, 91-115, 
with Lucretius VI. Cf. E. G. Sihler, 7ransactions Am. Phil. Ass., 1898. 

2De Bello Peloponnesiace, 11. 49, 7, 8. Cf. Munro, IT, pp. 391-401. 

ἘΝῚ, 1206 -12. 


INTRODUCTION. 17 


perverted this passage from Thucydides in order to reinforce his position? 
The misery of the plague-stricken victims wassuch that suicide would 
seem to be reasonable and desirable; but fear of death—that ever- 
present terror of men’s lives—withheld them from this and induced 
them to deprive themselves of certain diseased members that life 
might be prolonged. 

There is another extreme view regarding the question under dis- 
cussion, which is represented by those scholars who maintain that 
Lucretius was a man of great independent research. These men 
light uncritically upon any point of doctrinal identity, particularly in 
_ Book VI, and forthwith are eager to ascribe original investigation to 
-Lucretius.' There can be no doubt also that ‘‘he was endowed not 
only with the poet’s susceptibility to the movement and beauty of the 
outside world, but also with the observing faculty and curiosity of a 
naturalist : * but it must be ever kept in mind that distinctive Ep- 
icureanism does not consist of the study of the minutiae of physical 
facts for the purpose of presenting a well articulated system of natural 
philosophy, but is practically the metaphysical employment of ob- 
served phenomena to demonstrate the folly of fearing the gods or 
death. It is necessary always to differentiate the γνήσιος φυσιολογία of 
Epicurus, which is substantially given in Books I to earlier parts of V, 
from the specific elucidation of physical phenomena in Book VI, which 
agrees, so far as these are concerned, with the letter to Pythocles.* Un- 
questionably in the field of physical research Lucretius does evince 
some traces of independent investigation. But there is little if any 
evidence that in what may be called the true Epicureanism he is sim- 
~ ilarly self-reliant. 

As to the general question of originality of treatment, it is clear 
‘that a middle ground between the extreme positions herein illustrated 
must be adopted. Some personal study of Empedocles, as will be 





1 Vide Paulus Rusch: De Posidonio Lucreti Cari Auctore in Carmine De Rerum 
Natura ΚΔ, Greifswald, 1882 [a doctor’s dissertation], who tries to trace points 
in Book VI even to Posidonius. Rusch is evidently aware of his oddity, for on 
p- 51 he says: Valde temerarius fortasse visus sum, quod temptavi carminis poetae 
Romani, quem strenuum Epicureum fuisse viri docti persuasum habebant vel etiam 
Stoicum auctorem monstrare. 

2 Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 292. 

%Diog. Laer., X, 84, sqq. 


18 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


seen hereafter, must be accredited to Lucretius. And doubtless 
other philosophers, such as Democritus, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, and 
even Plato, were investigated by the poet for himself.’ Still it must 
always remain true that the chief service which Lucretius rendered to 
philosophy was the presentation in an attractive form of the teachings 
of Epicurus, who, to judge from his literary remains, was utterly in- 
capable of producing an exposition of his creed so admirable in every 
way as that contained in the De Rerum Natura.’ Lucretius perhaps 
added nothing of importance to the Epicurean system, but he im- 
parted a wondrous vitality and buoyancy to its heavy, mechanical 
doctrines. 


An emphatic variation is observable in the position which Lucretius 
assumes towards the leaders of the several schools of philosophy 
which he criticises. The bulk of his discussion touching these 
schemes of thought is found in Book I, though marks of controversy 
are discoverable throughout the entire poem. In these polemical 
passages Lucretius occasionally exhibits a spirit alike friendly and ap- 
preciative towards the champions of faiths hostile to his own, though 
more frequently he inveighs bitterly against those whose doctrines 
oppose the tenets of Epicurus. In this disposition to treat fairly his 
antagonists, the disciple excelled the teacher ; for Epicurus had ap- 
parently become so blinded by personal vanity, and so intoxicated by 
the idolatry of his followers, as to be no longer able to discern any 
feature of excellence outside his own narrow circle of speculation. 
Lucretius, on the other hand, shows a commendable desire to give 
honor to whom honor is due. It will perhaps facilitate our discus- 
sion of the controversial elements in Lucretius if we consider first 
those points of contact between the poet and the subjects of his 
criticism which reveal a sentiment of friendliness, and secondly 
those which betray an unmistakable attitude of hostility. 





1 Munro, II, p. 9. 
2 Masson, Atomic Theory of Lucretius, Ὁ. 4. 


PRE-SOCRATIC PHYSICISTS. 1g 


I. 
PHILOSOPHERS WITH WHOM LucrETIUS CONTENDS AMICABLY. 


In placing his discussion of the Pre-Socratic Physicists in the very 
fore-front of his poem Lucretius has shown a distinctive trait of his 
school, which is also amply illustrated in the Volumina Herculanensia; 
for Epicurean teachers were evidently in the habit of commencing an 
exposition of their own doctrines by making a criticism upon other 
systems of natural philosophy.’ But mere conformity to a tradi- 
tional method is not a sufficient explanation of the poet’s introduc- 
tion of controversy at such an early stage in the development of his 
theme. ‘There was an immediate occasion to justify the procedure. 
Lucretius has sometimes been accused of being too belligerent, of 
_forcing a conflict when the reasons for warfare were somewhat 
obscure.” Perhaps he does sometimes bristle with steel when no 
enemy is visible, but surely this complaint cannot be lodged against 
him with propriety in this instance. For the long polemical section 
beginning at I, 635, appears to arise out of the very necessities of 
Lucretius argument. It must be remembered that his chief aim is 
to cleanse human life and deliver the soul of man from the terrors of 
superstition, which he believes are engendered by ignorance of the 
constitution of nature, of the origin of the material universe and of 
the causes of natural phenomena. These mental disturbances are 
only to be conquered by letting in the light of reason upon the pro- 
cesses of nature. 


Hunc igitur terrorem animi tenebrasque necessest 
Non radii solis neque lucida tela diet 
Discutiant, sed naturae species ratiogue— 


is the burden of the refrain he loves to repeat But in order to 
establish knowledge, it is first necessary to make inquiry into the 





1Stickney, De Natura Deorum, p. 23. 
?Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 298. 
51 146-8; II, 59-61; III, 91-3; VI, 39-41. 


λ 


2Ο CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


primary principles of being. Now from the earliest times the effort 
of all framers of ontological systems has been to discover the original 
substance or substances from which all existing things have come 
into being. And a great variety of results have been reached by the 
investigations of primitive philosophers. Lucretius discards the 
findings of all these researchers except Democritus, and cordially fol- 
lowing Epicurus in this regard, adopts the atomistic theory, which is 
attributed to Leucippus and Democritus jointly, and declares that 
the original substances are atoms and the νοϊά--- ἄτομα καὶ κενόν---- 
materies οἱ inane. He then proceeds to lay down and demonstrate 
his propositions relative to the constitution of matter. He enunci- 
ates the two great laws of nature : 


Nullam rem e nilo gignt divinitus unquam.' 


In sua corpora rursum 
Dissoluat natura neque ad nilum interemat res.” 


He expounds the nature of the atoms, and asserts their eternity, 
solidity, indivisibility, and then pauses to enter upon a controversy 
with those philosophers whose theories are utterly irreconcilable with 
his own. This appears to be unavoidable with a man of his earnest- 
ness. He evidently feels that until these false teachings have been 
neutralized he cannot proceed with his constructive argument. 

However he does not treat all of these notable predecessors with 
unmitigated severity. Indeed in some instances his considerateness 
amounts to praise : 


Quamquam multa bene ac divinitus invenientes 
Ex adyto tamquam cordis responsa dedere 
Sanctus et multo certa ratione magis quam 
Pythia quae tripode a Phoebi lauroque profatur, 
Principits tamen in rerum fecere ruinas 

Et graviter magni magno cecidere 101 casu.* 


But he is emphatic in denunciation of their theories. He breaks 
with all the early Ionic and Eleatic philosophers, Thales, Anaximenes, 





1T, 150. 
τς 8G. 
31, 736-41. 


PRE-SOCRATIC PHYSICISTS. 21 


Pherecydes, Xenophanes, Parmenides and the rest, who call any one 
or more substances original matter. The names of these thinkers are 
not mentioned by Lucretius, but he distinctly condemns. their 
physical doctrines. 


Quapropler qui materiem rerum esse putarunt 
lgnem atque ex igni summam consistere posse, 
Et qui principium gignundis aera rebus 
Constituere, aut umorem quicumque putaruni 
Fingere res ipsum per se, lerramve creare 
Omnia et in rerum naturas vertier omnis, 
Magno opere a vero longe derrasse videntur. 
Adde etiam qui conduplicant primordia rerum 
Aera tungentes igni terramque liquort, 

Et qui quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur 
Ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri.' 


I. EMPEDOCLES. 


The occasion of Lucretius’ attack upon Empedocles, if it can 
properly be denominated such, is the position which he occupies 
among those physicists who have named one or more substances as 
primordial matter. Were it not for this we may well conjecture that 
Lucretius would have paid an honest tribute of respect and obligation 
to this illustrious sage and passed on to other subjects of criticism. 
But he regards Empedocles as the most dominant figure among those 
philosophers who make a combination of certain substances their 
original matter.” And in this he is unquestionably correct. Aris- 
totle bears witness to the fact that Empedocles first declared that 
there were four elements, to which Plato subsequently gave the des- 
ignation στοιχεῖα. * 

*ESéxe. δὲ αὐτῷ τάδε' Στοιχεῖα μὲν εἶναι τέτταρα, πῦρ, ὕδωρ, γῆν, ἀέρα’ 
φιλίαν τε y συγκρίνεται, καὶ νεῖκος ᾧ διακρίνεται. Φησὶ δ᾽ οὕτω, 

Ζεὺς ἀργὴς, Ἥρη τε φερέσβιος, ἠδ᾽ ᾿Αϊδωνεὺς, 
Νῆστίς θ᾽, ἣ δακρύοις ἐπιπικροῖ ὄμμα βρότειον. 





V1, 705-15. 
2 Quorum Acragantinus cum primis Empedocles est. 1, 716. 
5 Ritter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec., 131, a. 


22 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


Ala μὲν, τὸ πῦρ λέγων' Ἥρην δὲ, τὴν γῆν᾽' ᾿Αἰδωνέα δε, τὸν dépa: Νῆστιν δὲ, 
τὸ ὕδωρ] 

Holding such principles Empedocles would inevitably fall under 
the censure of Lucretius. Yet his position is exceptional. He is 
the only philosopher among those from whom the poet differs, with 
whose name laudation is coupled. But warm and enthusiastic is the 
eulogium of Lucretius upon him. He is the chief glory of the won- 
derful three-cornered Sicilian isle, — 


Quae cum magna modis multis miranda videtur 
Gentbus humanis regio visendaque fertur, 
Rebus opima bonis, multa munita virum Οἱ, 

Nil famen hoc habuisse viro praeclarius in se 
Nec sanctum magis et mirum carumque videlur. 
Carmina quin etiam divini pectoris eius 
Vociferantur et exponunt praeclara reperta, 
Ut vix humana videatur stirpe creatus.” 


But more significant than any verbal praise which Lucretius be- 
stows upon Empedocles is the internal evidence which his poem dis- 
closes of his affectionate study of the philosopher, and his copious 
use of the style of utterance and philosophical conceptions of Em- 
pedocles, notwithstanding the general disagreement between their 
doctrines. Lucretius was greatly indebted to Empedocles in various 
ways. He doubtless regarded the περὶ φύσεως of the latter as in some 
sense his poetic model.* The genius of Empedocles was celebrated 
by Aristotle, and may well have influenced the character of Lucretius’ 
composition. *Ev δὲ τῷ περὶ ποιητῶν φησιν, ὅτι Kat ‘Opnpikds ὁ ᾿Εἰμπεδοκλῆς, 
κὰι δεινὸς περὶ τὴν φράσιν γέγονε, μεταφορικός τε ὧν, κὰι τοῖς ἄλλοις τοῖς περὶ 
ποιητικὴν ἐπιτεύγμασι χρώμενος. In view of the fact that critics have 
been able to designate verses in both authors which bear a distinct 
Homeric® flavor, we may infer, perhaps, that the influence of 
Empedocles upon Lucretius was even more subtle than the latter 





1Diog. Laer., VIII, 76. 

71, 726-33. 

5 Munro, II, p. 90. Cf. δι p. 32. 

4 Diog. Laer., VIII, 57. 

5 Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 302. 


EMPEDOCLES. 23 


was himself aware. But the traces of a more direct influence are 
abundant. The first fundamental principle, which Lucretius estab- 
lishes at the outset of his argument, is that nothing can be created 
from nothing by divine agency ; and the second is like unto it, that 
nothing already in existence can ever be annihilated. But the very 
content and form of these propositions reflect the doctrine of 
Empedocles. 


Nullam rem e nilo gigni divinitus unquam, 
was evidently suggested by the lines of the older poem περὶ φύσεως : 


ἐκ τοῦ yap μὴ ἐόντος ἀμήχανόν ἐστι γενέσθαι 

τό τ᾽ ἐὸν ἐξόλλυσθαι ἀνήνυστον καὶ ἄπρηκτον." 
What has the appearance of generation and decay in the view of Em- 
pedocles is in reality but combination and separation. And with 
this view Lucretius agrees perfectly, the arguments which he ad- 
dresses in defense of his theory being both interesting and pertinent.? 

We are indebted to Aemilius Hallier* for an exhaustive presenta- 

tion of the evidences of Lucretius’ familiarity with Empedocles. 
This painstaking writer has collated a considerable body of passages 
from the two poets which amply justify the opinion that the De 
Rerum Natura owes much to the περὶ φύσεως, both in literary style and 
in philosophic material. There exists, for example, a similarity of 
grammatical and rhetorical forms in these productions which is 
worthy of remark. Both poets are also given to an almost excessive 
use of iteration, Lucretius in particular being prone to this habit. 
Again, both freely employ tmesis, another indication, perhaps, of 
the influence of the Homeric verse upon Empedocles who studied it. 
Then, too, there are palpable imitations of the elder poet in the 
phraseology of Lucretius. Compare the following lines : 


αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ παλίνορσος ἐλεύσομαι és πόρον ὕμνων." 
Sed nunc ut repetam coeptum pertexere dictis.® 





1 Emped., 48, 49, Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 300. 

21, 159-328. 

5" Lucreti Carmina e Fragmentis Empedoclis Adumbrata, Jena, 1857, (A doctor’s 
dissertation). 

1 Emped., 169, Hallier, p. 13. 

5 Lucret., 1, 418. 


24 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


ylyvovr’ ἄνθρωποί τε kal ἄλλων ἔθνεα θηρῶν." 
Et genus humanum, parit omnia saecla ferarum.* 


Again, there are instances of the employment of identical similes 
by both poets : 
γῆς ἱδρῶτα θάλασσαν. 
expressus salsus de corpore sudor.* 


Munro ὅ has pointed out that the lines— 


Nec tamen hanc possis oculorum subdere visu 
Nec tacere indu manus, via qua munita fidet 
Proxima fert humanum in pectus templaque mentis—® 


are translated from this passage of Empedocles : 


οὐκ ἔστιν πελάσασθ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἐφικτὸν 
᾿ημετέροις ἢ χερσὶ λαβεῖν ἥπερ γε μεγίστη 
πειθοῦς ἀνθρώποισιν ἁμαξιτὸς εἰς φρένα πίπτει. 

But the marks of doctrinal agreement in the works of these poet- 
philosophers are even more significant than resemblances of compos- 
ition. While Empedocles and Lucretius differ on many of the 
questions involved in their several discussions of the nature of things, 
there are not a few notable points of coincidence in their writings. 
They are of one mind touching the eternity of matter : 


φύσις οὐδενός ἐστιν ἁπάντων 
θνητῶν, ovdé τις OvAopévov θανάτοιο τελευτή, 
5 φύσις δ᾽ ἐπὶ rots ὀνομάζεται ἀνθρώποισιν. 


Quod st in eo spatio atque anteacta aetatle fuere 
Δ᾽ quibus haec rerum consistit summa refecta, 
Immortali sunt natura praedita certe, 

Haut igitur possunt ad nilum quaeque revertt. 





1 Emped., 115, Hallier, p. 13. 
2Zucret., Ul, 995. 

3Emped., 165. 

4Zucret., V, 487. 

5 TI, 290. 

6Zucret., V, 101-3. 

iEmped., 356. 

8/b., 36, 37, 39, Hallier, p. 15. 


EMPEDOCLES. 25 


Denique res omnis eadem vis causaque volgo 
Conficeret, nist materies aeterna tener et, 
Inter se nexu minus aul magis indupedita.* 


Cognate with this doctrine is the theory of the constancy of the 
sum of matter in the universe, on which they are agreed: 
οὐδέ τι τοῦ παντὸς Kevedv πέλει οὐδὲ περισσόν. 
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἐπανυξήσειε τὸ πᾶν τί κε καὶ πόθεν ἐλθόν ; 


πῆ δέ κε καὶ ἀπολοίατ᾽ ; ἐπεὶ τὠνδ ᾿ οὐδὲν ἔρημον. 
ἀλλ᾽ αὔτ᾽ ἔστιν ταῦτα. 


Nam neque adaugescit φιεσφμαηι neque deperit inde. 


Nec rerum summam commutare ulla potest vis ; 

‘Vam neque quo possit genus ullum materiat 

Lifugere ex omni, quicquam est extra, neque in omne 
Unde coorta queat nova vis inrumpere et omnem 
Naturam rerum mutare et vertere motus.* 


There is reason to suppose that the doctrine that the soul is blood, 
to which Lucretius ὁ refers, is derived from Empedocles, who says : 
αἷμα yap ἀνθρώποις περικάρδιόν ἐστι νόημα. 

They are in accord also on the doctrine that all things came into ex- 
istence by the conjunction or combination of the eternal and _infini- 

tesimal semina. 
ἀλλὰ μόνον μίξις τε διάλλαξις Te μιγέντων 
ἐστὶ." 
. certla suo quia tempore semina rerum 
δῶν confluxerunt, patefit gquodcumque ογθαΐμ7. 


In their explanations of the phenomena of nature there are likewise 
important resemblances in Empedocles and Lucretius. The eclipse 
of the sun affords this parallel : 





1Lucret., 1, 234-40. 

2Emped. 91-94, Hallier, p. 16. 
3Lucret., 11, 296, 303-307. 

411T, 43. 

5Emped., 317, Munro, Il, p. 179. 
δ mped., 38, 39, Hallier, p. 22. 
*Lucret., 1, 176, 177. 


26 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


ἐπεσκίασεν δέ οἱ αὐγὰς 
ἱσταμένη καθύπερθεν, ἐπεσκνίφωσε δε γαίης, 
τόσσον ὅσον τ᾽ εὖρος γλαυκώπιδος ἔπλετο μήνης.᾽ 
Nam cur luna queat terram secludere solis 
Lumine et a terris altum caput obstruere et, 
Obiciens caecum radius ardentibus orbem.’ 


The growth of plants and trees is explained in a similar fashion by 


each ; 
᾿Ἐμπεδοκλῆς πρῶτα τὰ δένδρα τῶν ζῴων ἐκ γῆς ἀναδῦναι φησι, πρὶν τὸν ἥλιον 

περιαπλωθῆναι καὶ πρὶν ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα διακριθῆναι" διὰ δὲ συμμετρίαν τῆς 
κράσεως τὸν τοῦ ἄρρενος καὶ τοῦ θήλεος περιέχειν λόγον" αὔξεσθαι δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐν τῇ 
γῇ θερμοῦ διαιρόμενα, ὥστε γῆς εἶναι μέρη, καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔμβρνα τὰ ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ 
τῆς μήτρας pépy.” 

Principio genus herbarum viridemque nitorem 

Terra dedit circum collis camposque per omnis, 

Florida fulserunt viridant prata colore, 

Arborisque datumst vars exinde per auras 

Crescendi magnum inmissis certamen habenis. 

Ut pluma atque pili primum saetaeque creantur 

Quadripedum memoris et corpore pennipotentum, 

Sic nova tum tellus herbas virgultaque primum 

Sustulit, inde loct mortaha saecla creavit 

Multa modis multts varia ratone coorta.* 


Lightning is explained by both as the result of fire submerged in 


clouds : 
καϊτοι τινὲς λέγουσιν ὡς ἐν τοῖς νέφεσιν ἐγγίνεται πῦρ’ τοῦτο δ᾽ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς 
μέν φησιν εἶναι τὸ ἐμπεριλαμβανόμενον τῶν τοῦ ἡλίον ἀκτίνων." 
Hac etiam fit uti de causa mobilis ille 
Devolet in terram liquidi calor aureus ignis, 
Semina quod nubes ipsas permulta necessust 
Ignis habere; etenim cum sunt umore sine ullo, ἢ 
Flammeus est plerumque colos et splendidus ollis. 





1Emped., 157-9, Hallier, p. 31. 

*Lucret., V, 753-5: 

3Plac., V, 26, 4 Dox., 438, Ritter et Preller, 136. 

*Zucret., V, 783-92. 

5 Aristotle, Meteor, Il, 9, p. 369, B. 11, quoted by Hallier, p. 35. 


EMPEDOCLES. 27 


Quin etiam solis de lumine multa necessest ὁ 
Concipere, ut merito rubeant ignesque profundant.' 


Epicurus doubtless borrowed his notion of effluxes’ (ἀπόῤῥοιαι) from 
Empedocles to explain the phenomena of perception. σκόπει δὴ κατ᾽ 
Ἐμπεδοκλέα γνοὺς ὅτι πάντων εἰσὶν ἀπορροαὶ ὅσσ᾽ ἐγένοντο" οὐ γὰρ ζῴων μόνον 
οὐδὲ φυτῶν, οὐδὲ γῆς καὶ θαλάττης, ἀλλὰ καὶ λίθων ἄπεισιν ἐνδελεχῶς πολλὰ 
ῥεύματα καὶ λίθων καὶ σιδήρου) These emanations he termed εἴδωλα, and 
Lucretius has adopted the same method of accounting for sense per- 
ceptions, devoting a large proportion of Book IV to the considera- 
tion of what he denominates szmudacra. Sellar‘ has called attention 
to the fact that the principle of beauty and life in the universe 
‘figures in the verses of both writers under the symbol of the goddess 
of love—Empedocles employing the form Κύπρι Barttaa; Lucretius, 
alma Venus, genetrix. Zeller draws an interesting parallel between 
the primitive substances of Empedocles (which are subject to no 
qualitative changes, and combine only through the entrance of the - 
particles of one body into the intervals between the parts of another) 
and the Atoms and Void of the Democritean system.* Perhaps a 
similar comparison between the Empedoclean doctrine of Love and 
Hate and the atomistic theory of the eternal conflict and conjunction 
would be equally justifiable. τὰ μὲν σωματικὰ στοιχεῖα ποιεῖ τέτταρα, πῦρ 
καὶ ἀέρα καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ γῆν, ἀίδια μὲν ὄντα πλήθει καὶ ὀλιγότητι, μεταβάλλοντα δὲ 
κατὰ τὴν σύγκρισιν καὶ διάκρισιν, τὰς δὲ κυρίως ἀρχάς, ὑφ᾽ ὧν κινεῖται ταῦτα, 
φιλίαν καὶ νεῖκος. δεῖ γὰρ διατελεῖν ἐναλλὰξ κινόυμενα τα στοιχεῖα, ποτὲ μὲν ὑπὸ 
τῆς φιλίας συγκρινόμενα, ποτὲ δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ νείκους διακρινόμενα" Compare 
this statement with the lines of Lucretius— 





'\Lucret., V1, 204-210. 

*Diog. Laert., X, 46-53. 

3 Plutarch, Qu. Nat., 19, 3, in Ritter et Preller, 132 h. Cf. Zeller, Pre-Socratic 
Philosophy, 11, p. 165. 

*Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 300. Cf. Hallier, p. 25. 

5«¢This whole theory is closely allied to that of the Atomists. The small, 
invisible particles take the place of the atoms, and pores the place of void. 
The Atomists see in bodies a mass of atoms separated by empty inter- 
spaces ; Empedocles sees in them a mass of particles which have certain openings 
between them, εἰς... Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11, p. 135. Cf. Munro, 
II, p. 92. ‘ 

8 Simpl. Phys., 6 ν.. 25. 21, D., in Ritter et Preller, 132 b. 


28 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


Nec stc interemit mors res ut matertat 
Corpora conficial, sed coetum dissupat ollis 
Inde aliis aliud coniungit.' 


Is there not at least some external resemblance between these declar- 
ations of the method by which the forces of nature operate ? 

The comparisons thus far instituted by no means exhaust the pos- 
sibilities of the subject, but are-sufficient to demonstrate the intimate 
acquaintance of Lucretius with Empedocles, and his indisputable 
obligation to the older poet. The eulogy which he pronounces upon 
Empedocles is not merely the praise of an admirer; it is an expres- 
sion of gratitude from a beneficiary. 

But despite his honorable acknowledgment of the greatness of Em- 
pedocles, Lucretius is bound in all sincerity to combat certain of his 
physicial doctrines and deductions as wholly inconsistent with a true 
philosophy of the universe. Perhaps it would be more just to say 
that in his strictures upon Empedocles Lucretius is aiming at the 
whole school of philosophers who name any qualitative substance or 
substances as primal matter, rather than at a single teacher. ‘These, 
in his judgment, which he presents with considerable fullness, have 
all gone astray with regard to primordia. And the arguments ad- 
duced against one are also valid against all. Yet it is possible in a 
few instances to distinguish the shafts which are especially directed 
toward Empedocles. 

Lucretius, in the first place, condemns the Agrigentine ΠΡ 
for denying void, while at the same time he admits motions to 
things. 

Primum quod motus exempto rebus inant 
Constituunt, et res mollis rarasque relinquont, 
Aera solem ignem terras animaha frugis, 
Nec tamen admiscent in eorum corpus tnane.* 


The testimony of Aristotle is clear on this point : ἔνιοι μὲν οὖν τῶν ph 
φασκόντων εἶναι κενὸν οὐδὲν διώρισαν περὶ κούφου καὶ βαρέος οἷον ᾿Αναξαγόρας 
καὶ ᾿Εμπεδοκλῆς." But Kmpedocles is himself equally plain : 





11, 1002-4. Cf. II, 569-80. 


*I, 742-45. ! 
2De Caelo, WV, 2, 390, ἃ 19. Ritter et Preller, 132 f. 


EMPEDOCLES. 29 


οὐδέ τι τοῦ παντὸς κενεὸν πέλει οὐδὲ περισσόν." 


This position Lucretius rightfully regards as incongruous. Indeed, 
as already indicated, the Empedoclean doctrine of primitive sub- 
stances and their method of combination leads logically and almost 
inevitably to something very much akin to the atomistic hypothesis. 
For atoms minute particles of matter are substituted, and for void 
we have pores or interstices Combination is effected according to 
a certain elective affinity, like particles being attracted by like and 
dissimilar particles being mutually repellent. Notwithstanding the 
palpable resemblances thus exhibited, Empedocles rejects the funda- 
mental principles of the atomists, an inconsistency which Aristotle 
was quick to discover. 

σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ ᾿Εμπεδοκλεῖ ἀναγκαῖον λέγειν, ὥσπερ καὶ Λεύκιππός φησιν. 
εἶναι γὰρ ἄττα στερεά, ἀδιαίρετα δέ, & μὴ πάντη πόροι συνεχεῖς εἰσιν. 


Lucretius furthermore exposes the fallacy of assigning softness to 
primordia and still supposing them immortal. 


Huc accedit item, quoniam primordia rerum 
Molha consthtuunt, quae nos nativa videmus 
Esse et mortali cum corpore funditus, utqui 
Debeat ad nilum tam rerum summa reverti 
De niloque renata vigescere copia rerum.’ 
This disastrous conclusion Empedocles distinctly disavows : 
φύσις οὐδενός ἐστιν ἁπάντων 

θνητῶν, οὐδέ τις οὐλομένονυ θανάτοιο τελευτή. 

ἔκ τε γὰρ οὐδάμ᾽ ὲ ἐόντος ἀμήχανόν ἐστι γενέσθαι, 

καὶ τ᾽ ἐὸν ἐξαπολέσθαι ἀνήνυστον καὶ ἄπυστον. 

αἶψα δὲ θνήτ᾽ ἐφύοντο τὰ πρὶν μάθον ἀθάνατ᾽ εἶναι." 

Lucretius next shows the inconsistency of maintaining that all 
things are made out of four elements and reduced to them again, in- 
asmuch as in this way the things are the primordia of the elements 
quite as truly as the elements are of the things. 





lEmped., 91, in Fairbanks’ First Philosophers of Greece, p. 168. 
*Aristotle, Gen. οὐ Corr., I, 1, 325 ὁ, 5. in Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, ΤΙ, 
p- 136, 2. 


$1, 753-57- 
*Emped., 77. 78, 81, 82, 178. Fairbanks, pp. 162, 164, 180. Munro, II, p. 93. 


30 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Denique quatiuor ex rebus st cuncta creantur 
Alque in eas rursum res omnia dissoluuntur, 
Qui magis tlla queunt rerum primordia dict 
Quam contra res illorum retroque putari? 
Alternis gignuntur enim mutanique colorem 
Et totam inter se naturam tempore ab omui.' 


Lucretius also contends more pointedly against the Heracliteans, 
perhaps, than against Empedocles, though the latter must be par- 
tially intended,’ that the supposed process from fire to air, water, 
earth, and thence in reverse order, involves the theory that the 
primordia must be distinct from these elements and unchangeable, 
otherwise all things would ultimately be annihilated.* 

Lucretius and Empedocles took opposite positions with reference 
to the value of the perceptions as media of knowledge. The former 
declared the senses to be infallible guides to truth. 


Non modo enim ratio ruat omnis, vita quoque ipsa 
Concidat extemplo, nist credere sensibus ausis,* 


The latter asserted that the senses are wholly unreliable, and en- 
joined men to acquire knowledge of the nature of things by 
reflection. | 

ἀλλ᾽ Gy ἄρθει πάσῃ παλάμῃ πῆ δῆλον ἕκαστον, 

μήτε τιν᾽ ὄψιν ἔχων πίστει πλέον ἢ κατ᾽ ακονὴν 

μήτ᾽ ἀκοὴν ἐρίδουπον ὑπὲρ τρανώματα γλώσσης 

μήτε τι τῶν ἄλλων, ὁπόσων πόρος ἐστὶ νοῆσαι, 

γυίων πίστιν ἔρυκε, νόει δ᾽ τ δήλον ἕκαστον. 


Lucretius maintains that the soul perishes with the body and em- 
ploys much labor and ingenuity to make good his argument.® But 
Empedocles taught the doctrine of a future life and the transmigra- 
tion of spirits. . 





1T, 763-68. 

2 Hallier, p. 20, insists that Lucretius refers in this passage to Heraclitus alone, 
but Munro, II, p. 95, says Empedocles was also included. 

31, 782-802. 

*IV, 507-8. 

5Emped., 19-23, in Fairbanks’ First Philosophers of Greece, p. 160. 

6 TIT, 417-829. 


EMPEDOCLES. 31 


ἤδη yap wor ἐγὼ γενόμην κοῦρός τε κόρη τε 
᾿θάμνος τ᾽ οἰωνός τὲ καὶ εἰν ἅλι ἔλλοπος ἰχθύς." 

Lucretius agrees with Empedocles in the theory that Nature tried 
many experiments and constructed many malformations, which were 
doomed to destruction, before she hit upon’perfection in the various 
species. 


πολλὰ μὲν ἀμφιπρόσωπα καὶ ἀμφίστερν᾽ ἐφύοντο, 

᾿ μεμιγμένα τῇ μὲν ἀπ᾿ ἀνδρῶν, 

τῇ δὲ γυναικοφνῆ, στεῖροις ἠἡσκημένα yuiots.” 
With this declaration of Empedocles may be compared a passage 
from Lucretius too lengthy for quotation in this place, but equally 
explicit. on the same theory.* But Lucretius condemns centaurs and 
other beings of a two-fold nature as impossible,* though Empedocles 
does not hesitate to affirm his credence in them : 


βουγενῆ ἀνδρόπρωρα, τὰ δ᾽ ἔμπαλιν ἐξανέτελλον 
ἀνδροφνῆ βούκρανα.ῦ 
Lucretius likewise dissents entirely from the doctrine that primary 
bodies worked teleologically, an idea which Empedocles embraces 
with enthusiasm, and the promulgation of which constitutes him ac- 
cording to Zeller ‘‘the earliest precursor of Darwin.” ® 
ἡ πολλαὶ μὲν κόρσαι ἀναύχενες ἐβλάστησαν, 
γυμνοὶ δ᾽ ἐπλάζοντο βραχίονες εὔνιδες ὥμων, 
οὖς ὄμματα δ᾽ οἷ᾽ ἐπλανᾶτο πενητεύοντα μετώπων. 
But Love—AdpoSirn—fashioned these together into comely and ap- 
propriate unions. 
αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ κατὰ μεῖζον ἐμίσγετο δαίμονι δαίμων, 


ταῦτά τε συμπίπτεσκον ὅπη συνέκυρσεν ἕκαστα, 
ἄλλα τε πρὸς τοῖς πολλὰ διηνεκῇ ἐξεγένοντο. 





AEmped., 384, 85. Fairbanks, p. 206. ζέον. Laer., VIII, 76. 

2*Emped., 257, 259, 260. Fairbanks, p. 190. 

SV, 837-54. 

41V, 878-924. Cf. Munro, II, pp. 328-9. 

5Emped., 258, 59. Fairbanks, p. 190. 

® Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11, p. 206. 

*Emped., 244-46, 254-56. Fairbanks, pp. 188-90. Cf. Munro, II, p. 326. 


32 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


So Empedocles expresses himself, while Lucretius vehemently de- 
nounces the doctrine of final causes in a passage’ which is directed, 
as we shall see hereafter, primarily against the Stoics. Faculties and 
functions were not created for predestined ends, but finding himself 
possessed of powers and appliances man uses them for his advantage, 


Nil ideo quoniam natumst in corpore ut uti 
Possemus, sed quod natumst id procreat usum.* 


It was the habit of the Epicurean school to include Empedocles in 
the catalogue of philosophers to be derided and condemned, as 
Cicero and Plutarch testify,* but Lucretius commends the author 
as much as he combats him, and discloses in his lines an indebted- 
ness to Empedocles which he is not averse from paying. 


2. ANAXAGORAS. 


Nunc et Anaxagorae scrutemur homoeomerian 
Quam Grat memorant nec nostra dicere lingua 
Concedit nobis pairn sermonis egestas, 

Sed tamen ipsam rem facilest exponere verbis.* 


With these words Lucretius introduces a philosopher for whom he 
has a degree of personal esteem, and with whom the Epicurean 
school had some natural affiliation. ‘The opinion which Epicurus 
held concerning Anaxagoras was singularly high. 

Μάλιστα δ᾽ ἀπεδέχετο, φηοὶ Διοκλῆς, τῶν ἀρχαίων “Avataydpav, καίτοι ἔν τισιν 
ἀντειρηκὼς αὐτῷ." 

In addition to this evidence of his warm regard Epicurus, it 
has been conjectured, furnishes further proof in the freedom 
with which in his letter to Pythocles he employs the views of 





11V, 823-57. 

ΣΙΝ, 834-5. 

3 Usener, Zpicurea, pp. 175, 10; 187, 10. 
41, 830-32. 
®Diog. Laer., X, 12. 


ANAXAGORAS. 33 


Anaxagoras in setting forth a variety of explanations for remarkable 
physical phenomena. A comparison of the extant fragments of An- 
axagoras and the records of his opinions in other writings with cer- 
tain statements of Epicurus in the document referred to has led to 
this conviction. Attention has been especially directed by Usener' 
to the causes assigned for the rising and setting of the sun, moon 
and stars; the intertropical movement of the sun and moon; the 
successive phases of the moon ; the apparition of a face in the orb 
of the moon ; the eclipses of the sun and moon ; and the phenom- 


ena of lightning, earthquakes and _ hail.’ 


Moreover there is a general sense in which Anaxagoras occupies a 


common ground with Empedocles, Leucippus and Democnitus.* 


On the proposition of Parmenides that generation and destruction in 
the ordinary meaning of those terms are impossible Anaxagoras is 
in agreement with the Atomists and the Epicureans. With them 
also he proceeds upon the supposition that there are certain original 
and immutable substances, out of which were evolved all things by 
combination and separation in space. There is this fundamental 
difference, however, between- Anaxagoras and the contemporaneous 
philosophers with whom he contended: The latter conceived prim- 
itive matter without the qualities of things in being. Empedocles 
names four elements distinct in quality. Democritus designates 
atoms unlimited in form and multitude and alike in quality as 
primordial matter. Anaxagoras, on the other hand, regards original 
and elementary substances as possessing all the qualities and differ- 
ences of things derived, and conceives them infinite in number and. 
kind, a theory which creates a radical divergence between himself 
and the Atomists. 

There is another position which separates Anaxagoras from the 
systems named. They explain motion, which is the cause of all 
combination, separation and order in the universe, by forces in- 
herent in matter; Empedocles by the mythical contrivance of Love 
and Hate, the Atomists by the force of gravity. But Anaxagoras 
asserts that motion must be attributed to the operation of immaterial 





\Epicurea, p. 400. ᾿ 
*Diog. Laer., X, 92-96, IOI, 105, 106. 
5 Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, Il, p. 330. 


/ 


34 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


energy, and places Mind—vots—in opposition to matteras the origin 
of motion and order. 

In support of the statement that Anaxagoras, like Epicurus, regard- 
ed generation and destruction as in reality only combination 
(σύγκρισις) and separation (διάκρισις), we have the affirmation of the 
philosopher himself : 


τὸ δὲ γίνεσθαι Kal ἀπόλλυσθαι οὐκ ὀρθῶς νομίζουσιν οἱ “EAAnves* οὐδὲν yap 
χρῆμα γίνεται οὐδὲ ἀπόλλυται, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ ἐόντων χρημάτων συμμίσγεταί τε καὶ 
διακρίνεται. καὶ οὕτως ἂν ὀρθῶς καλοῖεν τό τε γίνεσθαι συμμίσγεσθαι καὶ τὸ 
ἀπόλλυσθαι διακρίνεσθαι." 


On this passage Zeller makes the following comment—‘‘ The 
treatise of Anaxagoras did not begin with these words ; but that is, 
of course, no reason why they should not form the starting-point of 
his system.” It has already been shown how fundamental this doe- 
trine is to the Epicurean philosophy. Indeed Munro calls this 
fragment of Anaxagoras ‘‘an aphorism which Epicurus might have 
wholly adopted.* Aristotle has preserved the following— 


ἔοικε δὲ “Avataydpas ἄπειρα οὕτως οἰηθῆναι διὰ τὸ ὑπολαμβάνειν τὴν κοινὴν 
δόξαν τῶν φυσικῶν εἶναι ἀληθῆ, ὡς οὐ γινομένου οὐδενὸς ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος" διὰ τοῦτο 
γὰρ οὕτω λέγουσιν, ἦν ὁμοῦ τὰ πάντα, καὶ τὸ γίνεσθαι τοιόνδε καθέστηκεν 
ἀλλοιοῦσθαι." 


In this connection we may also quote : 
ὡς kal ᾿Αναξαγόρας καὶ Εἰὐριπίδης" 
θνήσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν τῶν γιγνομένων 
διακρινόμενον δ᾽ ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλο 
μορφὰς ἑτέρας ἀπέδειξεν.ὃ 
In ἃ similar vein are the lines of Lucretius already cited : 


Nec sic interemtt mors res ul materiat 
Corpora conpiciat, sed coetum dissupat ollis, 
Inde alits aliud contungit.® 





1237. 17 Schorn., Ritter et Preller, 110. 

2 Pre-Socratic Philosophy, Ul, p. 331, 1. 

Shp. τ τυ 

4Phys., 1, 4, 187 a, 26, in Ritter et Preller, 120 a. 
5Plac. V, 19, Dox. 430 a, in Ritter et Preller. 110 ὁ. 
6 TI, 1002-4. 


ANAXAGORAS. 35 


On the same grounds which enable him to declare against gen- 
eration and destruction, Anaxagoras asserts his belief in the 
unchangeableness of the sum of matter. 


- 


τούτων δὲ οὕτω διακεκριμένων γινώσκειν χρὴ; ὅτι πάντα οὐδὲν ἐλάσσω ἐστὶν 
οὐδὲ πλείω. οὐ γὰρ ἀνυστὸν πάντων πλείω εἶναι, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἴσα del! 


Epicurus has expressed himself with equal clearness and to the 
same effect : 

καὶ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶν del τοιοῦτον ἦν οἷον viv ἐστι, καὶ del τοιοῦτον ἔσται. οὐθὲν 
γάρ ἐστιν εἰς ὃ μεταβαλεῖ. παρὰ γὰρ τὸ πᾶν οὐθέν ἐστιν, ὃ ἂν εἰσελθὸν εἰς αὐτὸ 
τὴν μεταβολὴν ποιήσαι." 

Lucretius has embodied the same teaching in lines already cited in 
connection with our discussion of Empedocles.* 

That Lucretius had much sympathy with Anaxagoras will become 
further evident by an examination of a passage in the second book of 
the De Rerum Natura, in which there is a remarkably close transla- 
tion of a fragment of the Chrysippus of Euripides, who was a disciple 
of Anaxagoras. A comparison of the corresponding passages in the 
two poets reveals the intimacy of Lucretius with the writings of 
Euripides, and implies some warmth of regard on the part of the 
latter for the former. Euripides says : 

Γαῖα μεγίστη καὶ Διὸς αἰθὴρ, 
ὁ μὲν ἀνθρώπων καὶ θεῶν γενέτωρ, 
ἣ δ᾽ ὑγροβόλους σταγόνας νοτίους 
παραδεξαμένη τίκτει θνατούς, 
τίκτει δὲ βορὰν, φῦλά τε θηρῶν 
ὅθεν οὐκ ἀδίκως 
μήτηρ πάντων νενόμισται. 
χωρεῖ δ᾽ ὀπίσω τὰ μὲν ἐκ γαίας 
φύντ᾽ εἰς γαῖαν, τὰ δ᾽ am αἰθερίου 
βλαστόντα γονῆς εἰς οὐράνιον 
πόλον ἦλθε πάλιν’ θνήσκει δ᾽ οὐδὲν 
τῶν γιγνομένων, διακρινόμενον δ᾽ 
ἄλλο πρὸς ἄλλου 
μορφὴν ἰδίαν ἀπέδειξε." 





ΡΥ, 14 in Ritter et Preller, 120. 

*Diog. Laer., X, 30. 

51|, 294-307. See p. 25: 

*‘Euripidis Fragmenta, Wagner Ed., Paris, 1878. Cf. Munro, II, p. 166. 


36 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


The passage in Lucretius is as follows: 


Denique caelesh sumus omnes semine ortundt; 
Omnibus ile idem pater est, unde alma lquentis 
Umoris guitas mater cum terra recepit, 

Feta part nitdas fruges arbustaque laeta 

Et genus humanum, parit omnia saecla ferarum, 
Pabula cum praebet quibus omnes corpora pascunt 
Lt dulcem ducunt vitam prolemque propagani; 
Quapropler merito maternum nomen adepta est. 
Cedut item retro, de terra quod fut ante, 

Ln terras, et quod missumst ex aetheris oris, 

ld rursum caeli rellatum templa receptant. 

Nec sic interemtt mors res ut matertai 

Corpora conficrat, sed coetum dissupat ollis, 

[nde alits ahiud coniungit.' 


‘Munro remarks that this ‘‘ passage is quite Epicurean and con- 
sistent with the general argument of Lucretius, though his fondness 
for Euripides has made him express himself in the language of 
Anaxagoras.” 

Another instance in which Lucretius has adapted the text of An- 
axagoras to his own purpose is apparently afforded in one portion of 
his description of the manner in which the world was constructed. 
The declaration of Anaxagoras on the subject under consideration 
is: 

τὸ μὲν πυκνὸν Kal Siepdv Kal ψυχρὸν καὶ τὸ ζοφερὸν ἐνθάδε συεχώρησεν ἔνθα 
νῦν [ἣ γῆ] τὸ δὲ ἀραιὸν καὶ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ξηρὸν [καὶ τὸ λαμπρὸν] ἐξεχώρη- 
σεν εἰς τὸ πρόσω τοῦ αἰθέρος." 

Quippe efenim primum lerrat corpora quaeque, 
Proplerea quod erant gravia et perplexa, coibant 
/n medio atque itmas capiebant omnia sedes.* 





MTT, 991-1004. 

2 Munro II, p. 166, 

5 Fr. 8, in Fairbank’s “First Philosophers of Greece, p. 242. Cf. Munro I, 
p. 306. 

ἘΝ, 449-51. 


ANAXAGORAS. 37 


The immediate occasion of conflict between Lucretius and An- 
axagoras is the doctrine of the Zomoeomeria (ὁμοιομερεία) or the theory 
that the parts of a body are altogether similar to the whole, and 
that,these homeogeneous parts are original and elementary substances, 
infinite in number and variety. The account of this doctrine which 
Lucretius gives is comparatively brief, but is fairin the main and 
sufficiently exact for his purpose: 


Principio, rerum quom dicit homoeomerian, 
Ossa videlicet e pauxilis atque minutes 
Ossibus hic et de pauxillis alque minutts 
Visceribus viscus gignt sanguenque creart 
Sanguints inter se multis coeuntibu’ guttis 

~ ἂχ aurique putat micts consistere posse 
Aurum ei de terris terram concrescere parvis, 
Lgnibus ex ignis, umorem umoribus esse, 
Cetera consimili fingit ratione putatque.’ 


The argument which Lucretius makes against this doctrine will 
be considered after some examination of the actual teaching of 
Anaxagoras on this subject, as revealed in the most reliable extant 
sources of information. : 

The word homoeomeria (ὁμοιομερεία) does not appear in the frag- 
ments of Anaxagoras which have been preserved to us. Is there any 
ground for supposing that he ever employed the term? On this ques- 
tion scholars are divided. - Lucretius plainly asserts that Anaxagoras 
uses the word. Plutarch affirms the same:— Ὁμοιομερείας αὐτὰς ἐκάλεσε" 

Simplicius makes a like declaration :— 

Ὅτι δὲ ᾿Αναξαγόρας ἐξ ἑνὸς μίγματος ἄπειρα τῷ πλήθει ὁμοιομερῆ ἀποκρίνεσθαί 
φησιν πάντων μὲν ἐν παντὶ ἐνόντων, ἑκάστου δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν χαρακτηριζο- 
μένου, δηλοῖ διὰ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν Φυσικῶν λέγων ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς." 

Munro unhesitatingly places himself in the company of those who 
attribute this word to Anaxagoras, and maintains that there is 
sufficient evidence that even this exact form of the word originated 
with him and not with Lucretius, as had at first seemed probable, 
\ 





11, 834-42. 
2 Munro, II p. 98. 
3 Phys. 337 155, 23 D. Ritter et Preller, 120. 


, 


38 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


and as many critics still assert is the fact. Aristotle, who seems to 
be chiefly responsible for the perpetuation of the expression, it is 
admitted, never uses this substantive form (épovopepeta) but invariably 
the adjective (ὁμοιομερῆ. But Munro shows that he has himself 
traced the substantive to Epicurus, and expresses the conviction 
that, since Epicurus and his school were so well acquainted with 
Anaxagoras, they unquestionably derived it from them, and that 
Lucretius had it also from them and from Epicurus.’ 


Zeller, on the other hand, following Schleiermacher, Ritter and 
others, denies that the term was ever employed by Anaxagoras. He 
points in confirmation of this position not only to the fact that the 
term does not appear in the extant fragments of Anaxagoras, but 
also that in places where it would be’ natural to expect it, the words 
σπέρματα and χρήματα are found, and that the word cannot be satisfact- 
orily explained except in connection with Aristotle’s use of language, 
with whom he believes it originated; and contrary to Munro’s assert- 
ion, which he may not have seen, declares that the word homoeomeria 
is first found in Lucretius. ἢ 

But whatever may have been the origin of the words épovopepeta and 
ὁμοιομερές, there is not a little doubt and confusion as to the precise 
meaning attaching to them. Aristotle himself is apparently not 
always consistent in his usage: In general terms he mantains that 
Anaxagoras claimed bodies of similar parts to be the elements of 
things, a plain reversal of the atomistic theory, which teaches that 
the organic is composed of the elementary and not the elementary 
of the constituents of the organic.* Ordinarily Aristotle employs the 
Words τὸ ὁμοιομερεῖα, τὰ ὁμοιομερῇ to designate the whole whose parts are 
homogeneous with one another; in other words bodies which in all 
their parts consist of one and the same substance, in which, there- 
fore, all parts are of like kind with one another and with the whole. 


᾿Αναξαγόρας δὲ ὁ Κλαζομένιος τῇ μὲν ἡλικίᾳ πρότερος Gv τούτου (᾿Ἐμπεδοκλέ- 
ovs ), τοῖς δ᾽ ἔργοις ὕστερος, ἀπείρους εἶναί φησι Tas ἀρχάς’ σχεδὸν γὰρ ἅπαντα 
τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ, καθάπερ ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ, οὕτω γίγνεσθαι καὶ ἀπόλλυσθαί φησι συγκρί- 





1 Munro, II p. 98. 
2 Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, Ul, pp. 334, 35. 
*1b., Ῥ. 334+ 


ANAXAGORAS, 39 


σει καὶ διακρίσει μόνον, ἄλλως δ᾽ οὔτε γίγνεσθαι οὔτ᾽ ἀπόλλυσθαι ἀλλὰ διαμένειν 
ἀΐδια." 

But in other instances Aristotle evidently makes the words 
τὸ ὁμοιομερές and τὰ ὁμοιομερῆ refer to the homogeneous parts in 
- distinction from the whole, as for example when he says:— 

*Avataydpas δ᾽ ᾿Εἰμπεδοκλεῖ ἐναντίως λέγει περὶ τῶν στοιχείων. ὁ μὲν γὰρ πῦρ 
καὶ γῆν καὶ τὰ σύστοιχα τούτοις στοιχεῖά φησιν εἶναι τῶν σωμάτων καὶ συγκεῖσ- 
θαι πάντ᾽ ἐκ τούτων, ᾿Αναξαγόρας δὲ τοὐναντίον. τὰ γὰρ ὁμοιομερῆ στοιχεῖα (λέγω 
δ᾽ οἷον σάρκα καὶ ὀστοῦν καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἕκαστον) ἀέρα δὲ καὶ πῦρ μῖγμα τού- 
των καὶ τῶν ἄλλων σπερμάτων πάντων'εἶναι γὰρ ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν ἐξ ἀοράτων ὁμοιο- 
ομερῶν πάντων ἠθροισμένον." 

According to Zeller,* however, Aristotle is not to be regarded as 


seriously inconsistent, but as presenting a graduated scale of things 
under this terminology. At the bottom of the series are the primary 
elements. Next in order, and composed of the foregoing, are the 
bodies of similar parts. Finally we have the organic formed of the 
bodies of homogeneous parts. These last Aristotle designates by 
the term ἀνομοιομερῆ and they include the face, the hands, etc., bodies of 
unlike parts. The ὁμοιομερῆ include bone, flesh, gold, silver, etc., 
and these in turn are made of the smallest substances of the same 
kind as the bodies which they form. To represent these infinitesimal 
parts the plural of the substantive (épotopepetar) is employed by later 
writers such as Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius and others, as Zeller, 
Ueberweg and others declare, but also by Epicurus, as has been 
proven, and perhaps by Anaxagoras himself, as Munro contends, 
though the extant fragments of Anaxagoras have only,the words 
σπέρματα and χρήματα to designate the original constituents of things. 

But in dealing with this subject it is contended that Anaxagoras 
did not mention elements, that term having been introduced into 
philosophy at a later period by Plato and Aristotle. In short the 
primitive substances of Anaxagoras were infinitesimal bodies all of 
whose parts were homogeneous with one another. In the qualities 
which determined their distinctive characters they were underived 
and imperishable. Now the number of things which are not alike 
in the universe is unlimited. Hence there must be, according to 





Oy Aristotle, 2222. I, 3, 984 α 11. Ritter et Preller, 119 a. 
2 De Caelo, Il, 3, 302 a 28. Ritter et Preller, 119 a. 
3Pre-Socratic Philosophy il, p. 335, 3. 

ἘΣ p. 126, I. 


40 ‘ CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS. IN LUCRETIUS, 


Anaxagoras, an unlimited number of primordial bodies, not one of 
which resembles another, and these are differentiated in shape, color 
and taste. 

πρὶν δὲ ἀποκριθῆναι... - - πάντων ὁμοῦ ἐόντων οὐδὲ x porn ἔνδηλος ἦν οὐδεμία. 
ἀπεκώλνυε γὰρ ἣ σύμμιξις πάντων χρημάτων τοῦ τε διεροῦ καὶ τοῦ ξηροῦ καὶ 
τοῦ θερμοῦ καὶ τοῦ ψυχροῦ καὶ τοῦ λαμπροῦ καὶ τοῦ Lodepod καὶ γῆς πολλῆς 
ἐνεούσης καὶ σπερμάτων ἀπείρων πλήθους οὐδὲν ἐοικότων ἀλλήλοις. οὐδὲ γάρ 
τῶν ἄλλων οὐδὲν ἔοικε τὸ ἕτερον τῴ ἑτέρῳ." 

τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, χρὴ δοκεῖν ἐνεῖναι πολλά τε καὶ παντοῖα ἐν πᾶσι 
τοῖς συγκρινομένοις καὶ σπέρματα πάντων χρημάτων καὶ ἰδέας παντοίας ἔχοντα 
καὶ χροιὰς καὶ ἡδονάς. 


The objections which Lucretius brings against Anaxagoras are 
characteristic. There is, of course, the fundamental difference 
between them at the very beginning, that the Epicureans posit. one 
primitive matter, from which all things are derived by an in- 
finite variety of combinations, while Anaxagoras maintains an un- 
limited number of primordial.germs of every conceivable difference 
and quality. Out of this fundamental disagreement spring in the 
main the occasions of Lucretius’ hostility. 

The first count ‘in the indictment against Anaxagoras is that he 
does not recognize void in his calculations of the process of com- 
bination and separation. Aristotle bears witness on this point as 
follows:— 

ol μὲν οὖν δεικνύναι πειράμενοι ὅτι οὐκ ἕστιν (Td κενόν) οὐχ ὃ βούλονται λέγ- 
ev οἱ ἄνθρωποι κενόν, τοῦτ᾽ ἐξελέγχουσιν ἀλλ᾽ ἁμαρτάνοντες λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ ᾿Αν- 
αξαγόρας καὶ οἱ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἐλέγχοντες, ἐπιδεικνύουσι γὰρ ὅτι ἔστι τι ὁ ἀήρ 
στρεβλοῦντες τοὺς ἀσκοὺς καὶ δεικνύντες ὡς ἰσχυρὸς ὁ ἀὴρ καὶ ἐναπολαμβάνον- 
τες ἐν ταῖς κλεψύδραις.᾿ᾧ 

In the second place Anaxagoras holds to the infinite divisibility of 
bodies, a position in direct conflict with the atomistic theory. 

οὔτε yap τοῦ σμικροῦ γεἔστι τὸ ye ἐλάχιστον. GAN ἔλασσον ἀεί: τὸ γὰρ ἐὸν οὐκ 


ἔστι τὸ μή οὐκ εἶναι. ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀεὶ ἐστι μεῖζον. καὶ ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ σμικ- 
pw πλῆθος, πρὸς ἑαυτὸ δὲ ἕκαστόν ἐστι καὶ μέγα καὶ σμικρόν." 





1 Zeller Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11, pp. 336, 37. 

*Fr. 4, Ritter et Preller, 120. Cf. Fairbanks, /irst Philosophers of Greece ρὲ 236." 
5}3},.3, Fairbanks, p. 236. Cf. Ritter et Preller, 120. 

4Phys. V1, ©, 213 ἃ 22. Ritter et Preller, 126. 

‘Fr. 15, Fairbanks, pp. 242, 44. Cf. Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, Ml p. 341, 3. 


ANAXAGORAS, 41 


‘Quare in utraque mihi pariter ratione videtur 
Errare aique illi, supra quos diximus ante. 


Again, primordia of the character ascribed to them by Anaxagoras 
will be too feeble in the judgment of Lucretius to withstand the 
- shocks of antagonistic influences, and will ultimately perish. 


Adde quod inbecilla nimis primordia fingit; 

Si primordia sunt, simili quae praedita constant 

Natura atque ipsae res sunt aequeque laborant 

Et pereunt neque ab exitio res ulla refrenat. 

Nam quid in oppressu valido durabit eorum, 

Ut mortem effugiat, leti sub dentibus ipsts δ 

Ignis an umor an aura? quid horum P sanguen an ossa? 
Nil, ut opinor, ubi ex aequo res funditus omnis © 

Tam mortalis erit quam quae manifesta videmus 

Ex oculis nostris aliqua vi victa perire. 


Such an obvious violation of the first principles of his philosophy 
cannot be tolerated by so earnest an Epicurean as Lucretius, who 
says:— 


Af neque reccidere ad nilum res posse neque autem 
Crescere de nilo lestor res ante probatas.” 


_ Moreover, the fact that Anaxagoras attributes secondary qualities 
to his primitive particles is enough in the estimation of Lucretius 
to condemn the whole system. In his second book he labors ingen- 
iously to demonstrate the impossibility that such qualities should 
belong to original matter. As these qualities are themselves de- 
structible, he believes that the atoms possessing them would necessar- 
ily be perishable also.* 


Again, Epicurus and his school argued that the atoms, though 
indivisible, consist of parts inseparable and undistinguishable, which 
have existed in the atoms from eternity. These are called by Epi- 
curus ἐλάχιστοι and by Lucretius mznima. 





ΕἼ, 845-6. 
21, 847-58. 
3 II, 730-865. 


42 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


- 


τό Te ἐλάχιστον τὸ ἐν TH αἰσθήσει δεῖ κατανοεῖν ὅτι οὔτε τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν οἷον Td 
τὰς μεταβάσεις ἔχον οὔτε πάντῃ πάντως ἀνόμοιον,ἀλλ᾽ ἔχον μέν τινα κοινότητα τῶν 
μεταβατῶν, διάληψιν δὲ μερῶν οὐκ ἔχον ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν διὰ τὴν τῆς κοινότητος προσεμ- 
φέρειαν οἰηθῶμεν διαλήψεσθαί τι αὐτοῦ, τὸ μὲν ἐπιτάδε, τὸ δὲ ἔπέκεινα, τὸ ἴσον ἡμῖν 
δεῖ προσπίπτειν. ἑξῆς τε θεωροῦμεν ταῦτα ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου καταρχόμενοι καὶ οὐκ 
ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ, οὐδὲ μέρεσι μερῶν, ἁπτόμεν᾽, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν τῇ ἰδιότητι τῇ ἑαυτῶν τά μεγέθη 
καταμετροῦντα, τὰ πλείω πλεῖον καὶ τὰ ἐλάττω ἔλαττον. ταύτῃ τῇ ἀναλογίᾳ νομιστέ- 
ον καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ ἀτόμῳ ἐλάχιστον κεχρῆσθαι. μικρότητι γὰρ ἐκεῖνο δῆλον ὡς διαφέρει 
τοῦ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν θεωρουμένου, ἀναλογίᾳ δὲ τῇ αὐτῇ κέχρηται. ἐπεί περ καὶ 
ὅτι μέγεθος ἔχει ἣ ἄτομος, κατὰ τὴν [τῶν ] ἐνταῦθα ἀναλογίαν κατηγορήσαμεν, 
μικρόν τι μόνον μακρὰν ἐκβάλλοντες, 
Lucretius has given considerable space to the discussion of these 
minima,” but Anaxagoras repudiates the whole idea. τοὐλάχιστον μὴ 


ἔστιν εἶναι. 


In harmony with all his reasoning, which is based on practical 
considerations, Lucretius interposes as objections to the doctrine of 
Anaxagoras a couple of dilemmas. In the first place, 


guoniam cibus augel corpus alitque, 
Ὁ cire licet nobis venas et sanguen et ossa 


. Sive cibos omnis commixto corpore dicent 
Esse et habere in se nervorum corpora parva 
Ossaque ef omnino venas partisque cruoris, 
Fret utt ctbus omnis, et aridus et lquor 1256, 
Ex alienigenis rebus constare putetur, 
Ossibus et nervis sanieqgue et sanguine mixto,* 

In the second place, 
guaecum@que e terra corpora crescunt 
S? sunt tn lerris, terram constare necessest 
Ex alienigenis, quae ferris exoriuntur. 
Transfer item, totidem verbis ulare hcebit. 
Ln lignis si flamma latet fumusque cinisque, 
Ex atienigents consistant ligna necessest. 





1 Diogenes Laertius, X, 58, 59. 

* I, 599-634. 

SFr, 10; Fairbanks, First Philosophers of Greece, p. 244. 
ἘΠ 859-66. 


ANAXAGORAS. 43 


Praeterea tellus quae corpora cumque alit, auget 
Ex alienigenis, quae lignis his oriuntur.’ 


In other words, inasmuch as food supports the body, it must 
contain particles of the same kind as the body, which are not the 
same kind as itself, or the body must include particles of the same 
kind as the food, but not of the same kind as itself. And the 
same reasoning applies to the production of plants out of the earth 
and the development of flames out of wood. 

From these dilemmas Anaxagoras attempts to extricate himself by 
the hypothesis that all things are latent in each thing. 


Linguitur hic quaedam latitandi copia tenvis, 

74 quod Anaxagoras sibi sumit, ut omnibus omnis 
Res putet inmixtas rebus latitare, sed wlud 
Apparere unum cuius sint plurima mixta 

Et magis in promptu primaque in_fronte locata.* 


This representation of the position of Anaxagoras is certainly a 
fair one. He conceives all the primitive bodies as originally mixed 
together so throughly and in such infinitesimal particles that not one 
of them was individually perceptible, and therefore the combination 
exhibited none of the qualities of things in being. } 

ὁμοῦ χρήματα πάντα ἦν ἄπειρα καὶ πλῆθος kal σμικρότητα" kal γὰρ τὸ σμικρὸν 
ἄπειρον ἦν * καὶ πάντων ὁμοῦ ἐόντων οὐδὲν ἔνδηλον ἦν ὑπὸ σμικρότητος. πάντα 
γὰρ ἀήρ τε καὶ αἰθὴρ κατεῖχεν ἀμφότερα ἄπειρα ἐόντα " ταῦτα γὰρ μέγιστα ἔνεστιν 
ἐν τοῖσι σύμπασι καὶ πλήθεϊ καὶ μεγάθεϊ. ὃ 

But even things in being possessing all the qualities of the derived 
do not disclose the distinction between constituent bodies, but each 
contains parts of all; otherwise it would be impossible to explain the 
transition of all things into one another, and one could not come out 
of another, if it were not already ἃ part of it. 

ὁ μὲν [᾿Αναξαγόρας | ὁτιοῦν τῶν μορίων εἶναι μῖγμα ὁμοίως τῷ παντὶ διὰ τὸ ὁρᾷν 
ὁτιοῦν ἐξ ὁτουοῦν γιγνόμενον " ἐντεῦθεν γὰρ ἔοικε καὶ ὁμοῦ ποτὲ πάντα χρήματα 
ᾧάναι εἶναι, οἷον ἥδε ἣ σάρξ καὶ τὸδε τὸ ὀςτοῦν καὶ οὕτως ὁτιοῦν " καὶ πάντα ἄρα. 





1, 867-74. 


2 I, 875-79. 
3 Fr. τ in Ritter et Preller, 120. 


44 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


καὶ ἅμα τοίνυν " ἀρχὴ γὰρ οὐ μόνον ἐν ἑκάστῳ ἐστὶ τῆς διακρίσεως, ἀλλὰ kal 
πάντων kK. T. A. ! 


If, therefore, a thing seems to possess some single quality to the 
exclusion of others, it is simply because there is an excess of the 
substance indicated. The truth is that each thing has substances of 
every kind in it, but it derives its name from the predominating con- 
stituents, or as Munro puts it, ‘‘each individual thing is what it is by 
having in it the greatest number Of ὁμοιομερῆ στοιχεῖα, ἢ 


Lucretius disposes of this theory quite summarily by answering 
that if it were true, corn, water, clods, wood etc., would when ana- 
lyzed reveal vestiges of blood, milk, fire etc.; in other words when 
sufficiently divided they would exhibit traces of the substances fed to 
make them or produced from them. It is obvious that this is not 
the case, and we must conclude, decides Lucretius, that various 
things have certain elements in common. | 


His antagonist, he conjectures, may offer as an illustration of the 
opposite view the fact that tree-tops frequently catch fire by rubbing 

together under the action of the wind. But this simply demonstrates 
~ what he has already asserted, that there are many seeds of things 
which trees and heat possess in common. If there were fully formed 
particles of fire in trees or anything else they might burst into flame 
at any moment. It is all a matter of the arrangement-and order of 
the primordia whether they form one thing or another. 


Finally, Lucretius makes his favorite appeal to common sense, and 
closes his argument with a reductto ad absurdum which he evidently 
believes is unanswerable: 


Denique tam quaecumque in rebus cernis apertis 
Si fiert non posse putas, quin matertat 

Corpora consimili natura praedita fingas, 

Hac ratione tibi pereunt primordia rerum: 

Fiet uti risu tremulo concussa cachinnent 

Et lacrimis salsis umectent ora genasque.* 





1 Aristotle, Phys. III, 4, 203 a 23. Zeller Pre-Socratic Phil. Ul, 339, I. 
2H, pw TOR; 
5.1, 915-20. 





eT il δα, οὐ te el el I 


ANAXAGORAS, 45 


In the same vein are the verses of Lucretius in the second book 
(973-90), where he combats the idea that the atoms must be similar 
in quality to the whole, by showing that upon this supposition the 
atoms of men must be able to laugh and cry and moralize on their 
own constituent particles, and concludes, 


Quod st delira haec furtosaque cernimus esse 
Et ridere potest non ex ridentibu’ factus 

Et sapere et doctis rationem reddere dicts 
Non ex seminibus sapientibus atque diserts, 
Qui minus esse gueant ea quae sentire videmus 
Seminibus permixta carentibus undique sensu P 


It has been remarked that there is a striking similarity between 
Lucretius’ treatment of this portion of his argument against Anax- 
agoras, and the discussion on Empedocles in Book I, 803-29, both 
in language and matter. ‘The reason for this is apparent. The par- 
ticles of Anaxagoras seem to Lucretius to be open to the same 
criticism as the four elements of Empedocles. Both possess those 
secondary qualities which are the concomitants of things derived.’ 

In order to avoid blind Chance and eternal Necessity, Anaxagoras 
assumes Mind (vots) as the world-forming energy, an immaterial es- 
sence which is the cause of all motion and order in the universe. 
This places him inevitably in opposition to the Epicurean doctrine of 
the fortuitous concourse of atoms, but as this speculation does not 
figure as a point of actual contention in the poem of Lucretius, we 
may properly leave it without treatment here. 


3. Democritus. 


It is natural to expect that Lucretius will treat Democritus with 
great gentleness and consideration on account of the unquestioned 
indebtedness of the Epicurean school to this philosopher. Epicurus 
can scarcely be said to have had any scientific attainments of his own, 





1Munro, II, p. 102. 


46 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


though he indulged in a superficial study of nature, and. even ventured 
to publish the results of his investigations." It is none the less true, 
however, that he would have looked with contempt upon all scientific 
observation but for the practical advantages which such study af- 
forded him in his attempt to destroy the baneful influences of super- 
stition. on the human mind.’ For any other purpose the labor in- 
volved would have been esteemed superfluous by him. Science, 
therefore, Epicurus held to be subsidiary to ethics. Let the searcher 
after truth take whatever explanation of physical phenomena he will — 
only in the name of reason and for the sake of human comfort let him 
not attribute them to the interference of divine hands—is the doctrine 
of Epicurus. 

Some general mechanical theory, however, is necessary to account 
for the world and its activities, in order to banish this delusion of the 
human race. Now, the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus 
best serves Epicurus in this regard, and he adopts it without making 
any contribution to it except in a single instance, which will be men- 


tioned hereafter. ' 


The dependence οἵ Epicurus upon Democritus did not escape the 
keen scrutiny of Cicero, who says: Quid est in physicis Epicuri non a 
Democritor Nam etst quaedam commutauit ut quod paullo ante de in- 
clinatione atomorum dixt, tamen pleraque dicit eadem, atomos inane im- 
agines, infinitatem locorum innumerabilitatemque mundorum, eorum ortus 
interitus, omnia fere quibus nalurae ratio continetur.* In physicis, guibus 
maxime gloriatur, primum totus est alienus (Epicurus). Democritea 
dicit perpauca mutans, sed tla ut ea quae corrigere uolt, mihi quidem 
depruare uideatur . . . ta quae mutat ea corrumpit, quae sequitur 
sunt tota Democriti . . . quae etst mthi nullo probantur, tamen 
Democritum laudatum a ceteris ab hoc, qui eum unum secutus esset, 





1 Thirty-seven books entitled περὶ φύσεως, mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, 
my 27> . 
2 εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς al τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν Kal ai περὶ θανάτου, μή ποτε 
πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἢ τι, ἔτι τε τὸ μὴ κατανοεῖν τοὺς ὅρους τῶν ἀλγηδόνων καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμι- 
ὧν, οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα φυσιοχογίας. Diog. Laer. X, 142, Usener, “picurea, 


Ρ' 74- 
3 De Natura Deorum, 1, 26, 72. 


DEMOCRITUS. 47 


nollem uituperatum.' .  . Democritus, uir magnus in primis, cutus 
Sontibus Epicurus hortulos suos tnrigauit.” 


In the same vein is the testimony of Plutarch:* Anpoxptrov καλὰ καὶ 
πρέποντα διδασκάλια κομιζομένου rap αὐτοῦ (᾿ Ἐπικούρου), and Diogenes La- 
ertius records: φησὶ δ᾽ Ἕρμιππος γραμματοδιδάσκαλον αὐτὸν γεγενῆσθαι, 
ἔπειτα μέντοι περιτυχόντα τοῖς Δημοκρίτου βιβλίοις, ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν géat.* 
Usener has pointed out many positive imitations of Democritus in 
the writings of Epicurus.*° Notwithstanding these palpable evidences 
of the heavy indebtedness of Epicurus, he was very slow to acknowl- 
edge that he was under obligation to any teacher. He loved to 
herald himself as untaught.® He refrained from praising even those 
from whom he had undoubtedly derived instruction. Cicero, refer- 
ring to the custom of Socrates to eulogize other philosophers, says: 
Decet hoc nescio quo modo wlum, nec Epicuro, gut id reprehendit, as- 
sentior.' Diogenes Laertius also remarks: 


GAN οὐδὲ Λεύκιππόν τινα γεγενῆσθαί φησι φιλόσοφον,οὔτε αὐτὸς οὔτε “Eppapy - 
os, ὃν ἔνιοί φασι καὶ ᾿Απολλόδωρος ὁ ᾿Εἰπικούρειος διδάσκαλον Δημοκρίτου γεγεν- 
. σθαι .ὃ 


This fully justifies Cicero’s accusation of ingratitude.? At the 
same time Epicurus somewhat reluctantly gave an occasional ac- 
knowledgment of his association with the Democritean school. 


καί τοι πολὺν χρόνον αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀνηγόρευε Δημοκρίτειον ὁ “Enrixoupos,as ἄλ- 
λοι τε λέγουσι καὶ Λεοντεύς, εἷς τῶν ἐπ᾿ ἄκρον ᾿Εἰπικούρου μαθητῶν, πρὸς Λυκό- 
φρονα γράφων τιμᾶσθαὶ τέ φησι τὸν Δμμόκριτον ὑπ᾽ ᾿Εἰπικούρου διὰ τὸ πρότε- 
ρον ἅψασθαι τῆς ὀρθῆς γνώσεως, καὶ τὸ σύνολον τὴν πραγματείαν Δημοκρίτει- 
ον προσαγορεύεσθαι διὰ τὸ περιπεσεῖν αὐτὸν πρότερον ταῖς ἀρχαῖς περὶ hicews.!” 





1De Finibus I, 6, 17, 21. 
' 2De Natura Deorum I, 43, 120. 
3Usener, Zpicurea, p. 175. 
*X, 3. Usener, p. 360. 
SEpicurea, p. 402. 
6De Natura Deorum I, 26, 72. 
Brutus, ὃς, 292. 
8X, 13. 
*De Natura Deorum 1, 33, 93. 
10 Plutarch in Usener, Zpicurea, p. 175. 


‘ 


48 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


However, he treated Democritus himself, in at least one instance, 
with undisguised contempt.’ 

Lucretius shows a far more commendable spirit than Epicurus in 
relation to Democritus. He makes no attempt to conceal his un- 
qualified admiration for the philosopher to whom he owes so much, 
It is characteristic of Lucretius that, while he discredits all gods, he 
sets up for worship the best substitute he can find—a hero, to whom 
he can conscientiously pay divine honor. His enthusiasm for great 
men not only leads him to venerate Epicurus as a god, but also to be 
exceedingly deferential to every commanding figure. To Epicurus he 
assigns the supremacy among men, but Empedocles, Ennius, Homer, 
Democritus and others are entitled to lofty positions in his pantheon. 
Democritus would seem to occupy the closest proximity to Epicurus, 
if there is any significance in the arrangement of. the names in the 
striking passage in which he strives to mitigate the terrors of death 
by celebrating the fact that the grandest characters in human history 
have been compelled to undergo the same melancholy experience: 


Denique Democritum postquam matura vetustas 
Admonuit memores motus languescere mentts, 
Sponte sua leto cuput obvius optulit rpse.” 


The pressure of Democritus upon Lucretius is amply manifest. 
One of the most concise presentations of the doctrines of Democritus 
which we possess is that given by Diogenes Laertius. A comparison 
of the physical theories of Lucretius with the statements of Democ- 
ritus on corresponding questions contained in the following passage, 
will reveal the close affiliation of the two authors: 


᾿Αρχὰς εἶναι τῶν ὅλων ἀτόμους, καὶ κενόν " τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα πάντα vevo- 
μίσθαι δοξάζεσθαι. ᾿Απείρους τε εἶναι κόσμους, καὶ γενητοὺς, καὶ φθαρτούς, Μηδὲν 
τε ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος γίνεσθαι, μηδὲ εἰς τὸ μὴ ὄν φθείρεσθαι. Καὶ τὰς ἀτόμους δὲ ἀπ- 
εἰρους εἶναι κατὰ μέγεθος καὶ πλῆθος" φέρεσθαι δ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ δινουμένας. Καὶ οὕτω 
πάντα τὰ συγκρίματα γεννᾷν, πῦρ, ὕδωρ, ἀέρα, γῆν. Elva: γὰρ καὶ ταῦτα ἐξ ἀτόμ.- 
wv τινῶν συστήματα" ἅπερ εἶναι ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτα διὰ τὴν στεῤῥότητα. Τόν 
τε ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοιούτων δινῶν καὶ περιφερῶν ὄγκων συγκεκρίσθαι, καὶ 
τὴν ψυχὴν ὁμοίως" ἣν καὶ νοῦν ταὐτὸν εἶναι. “Ορᾷν δ᾽ ἡμᾶς κατ᾽ εἰδώλων ἐμπτώσεις." 





1Diogenes Laertius X, 8. 
2TII, 1039-1041. 
8Diogenes Laertius IX, 44. 


ὌΧΛΩΝ Ἢ ΣΎ Το 


DEMOCRITUS. 49 


It will be seen by this declaration of the Democritean principles 
that Lucretius has much in common with their author. They agree 
on the origin of the universe; the solidity, indivisibility and eternity 
of the atoms; the materiality of the soul; the media of sense percep- 
tions and other points of importance to be indicated hereafter. 

Special interest centres in the doctrine of emanations as held by 
Lucretius and. Democritus.’ In the scheme of the latter this theory 
plays a more important part than in that of the former. According 
to Democritus not only vision, but all perception, both that of the 
senses and of thought itself, has its origin in these emanations, which 
penetrate into the body through the organs of sense, and thus spread- 
ing through all its parts, produce a representation of things. But 
to secure this result it is essential that the emanations shall be like 
the organs of the body in material constitution. We perceive each 
thing with that part of our nature whick is akin to it. Democritus 
differed from Lucretius and Empedocles on the method of sense per- 
ception in this particular, that he did not conceive of his emanations 
as coming into direct contact with the organs of the body. The 
space between the objects and our bodies is filled with air. The 
εἴδωλα, therefore, cannot themselves reach our senses, but the air 
which is moved by them does so. Clearness of perception naturally 
decreases in proportion to the distance between the organs of sense 
and the image to be reproduced to sight, or the source from which 
sound emanates or thought proceeds. It is evident that with such a 
view of the mode of communicating impressions, there can be no ac- 
curacy of knowledge through: perception. And as thought is de- 
clared by Democritus to have a similar origin, it is difficult. to see 
how he can place any more reliance upon the phenomena of the 
mind than upon the sensations of the body, though -he doubtless 
does.? To the doctrine of emanations held by Lucretius, Emped- 
ocles, Democritus and Epicurus each contributed a part, the last 
named having had an especial influence upon the poet.* From the 








Ἵ Δεύκιππος Δημόκριτος τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν νόησιν γίνεσθαι εἰδώλων ἔξωθεν 
προσιόντων * μηδενὶ γὰρ ἐπιβάλλειν μηδετέραν χωρὶς τοῦ προσπίπτοντος εἰδώλου. 
Plac. \V, 8. Dox. 395 in Ritter et Preller, 155. 

* Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, Ul, pp. 265-72. 

3Cf. Diogenes Laertius X, 46-53, with Lucretius, 1V. 


50 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


surface of all bodies infinitesimal particles are streaming every 
moment. These particles take the figure of the objects from which 
they proceed, and thus form images or ido/a of the things they 
leave. ‘These emanations are spontaneously generated, they are in- 
cessantly streaming, they move with almost inconceivable rapidity, 
and should they cease at any time we should at once lose sight, 
smell and hearing. By reason of this perpetual evaporation of mat- 
ter a never-ending waste is going on, which explains the theory of 
Lucretius that the world is continually being fed with fresh matter 
from without. Moreover, on account of the porosity of matter, these 
simulacra constantly pass through them in all directions. Thus all 
bodies are to a greater or less degree interpenetrated with other 
matter. Somewhat more obscurely, but none the less truly, does 
Lucretius state the Empedoclean notion ‘of pores differing from or 
resembling in shape the atoms which proceed by this streaming pro- 
cess from all bodies.'. To these emanations we are indebted for 
dreams, apparitions and many other strange phenomena, Our con- 
ceptions of the deities, for example, have their origin in these images. 
But while Democritus distrusts the evidences of the senses, Lu- 
cretius, as we have already seen, maintains the absolute correctness 
of the presentations of these organs of perception. If misconceptions 
are formed from the testimony of the senses, it must be the mind 
which errs in the inferences made.” 

There is a striking similarity in the views expressed by Lucretius 
and Democritus on the question of the summum bonum, although 
there is an unimportant difference in the terms employed. 

Τέλος δὲ εἶναι τὴν εὐθυμίαν, od τὴν αὐτὴν οὖσαν τῇ ἡδονῇ, ὡς ἔνιοι παρακούσαν- 
τες ἐξεδέξαντο, ἀλλὰ Kad’ ἣν γαληνῶς καὶ εὐσταθῶς ἣ ψυχὴ διάγει, ὑπὸ μηδενὸς 
ταραττομένη φόβου, ἢ δεισιδαιμονίας, ἢ ἄλλου τινὸς πάθους. Καλεῖ δ᾽ αὐτὴν καὶ εὐ- 
εἐστὼ, καὶ πολλοις ἄλλοῖϊς ὀνόμασι. ὃ 

If we compare this declaration with all that has been preserved as 
the doctrine of Epicurus upon the same subject, we shall find that 
the difference between the two is virtually nothing. In the recorded 
sayings of Epicurus there is surely as refined a conception of the 





1 Masson, Atomic Theory of Lucretius, p. 46. 
2Lucretius, 1V, 379-86. 
3Diogenes Laertius, IX, 45. 


DEMOCRITUS. 51 


meaning and function of pleasure as has been anywhere expressed by 
Democritus so far as our knowledge of his sentiments enables us to 
judge.’ 

Lucretius, who follows Epicurus faithfully here as elsewhere, ex- 
presses himself with equal dignity and forcefulness: 


O miseras hominum mentes, O pectora caeca/ 
Qualhbus in tenebris vitae quantisque pericls 
Degitur hoc aevt quodcumquest! nonne videre 
Nil aliud sibi naturam latrare, nisi ul qui 
Corpore setunctus dolor absit, mente fruatur 
Lucundo sensu cura semota metuque ὁ 

Ergo corpoream ad naturam pauca videmus 
Esse opus omnino, quae demant cumque dolorem. 
Delicias quoque uti multas substernere possint 
Gratius interdum, neque natura ipsa requirit, 
Si non aurea sunt iuvenum simulacra per aedes 
Lampadas igniferas manibus retinentia dexirts, 
Lumina nocturnis epulis ul suppeditentur, 

Nec domus argento fulget auroque renidet 

Nec citharae reboant laqueata aurataque ‘fecta, 
Cum tamen inter se prostratt in gramine molli 
Propter aquae rivum sub ramis arboris altae 
Non magnis opibus tucunde corpora curant, 
Praesertim cum tempestas adridet et anni 
Tempora conspergunt viridanits floribus herbas. 
Nec calidae cittus decedunt corpore febres, 
Textilibus st in picturis ostroque rubentt 
Lacteris, quam si in plebeia veste cubandum est. - 
Quapropler quoniam nil nostro in corpore gazae 
Proficiunt neque nobilitas nec gloria regnit 
Quod super est, animo quoque nil prodesse putandum.’ 


In this connection we may also note the similarity of attitude 
* which Democritus and Lucretius take with reference to the passion 
of love. For sexual enjoyment they both have a certain contempt, 





'Diogenes Laertius, X, 128-132, 140. Usener, Zpicurea, pp. 62-64, 72. 
2 II, 14-39. 


52 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


which in Democritus amounts to positive hatred, because in the per- 
suit of such pleasure the man gives himself over to the degrading 
charm of the senses.’ The intense earnestness of Lucretius in deal- 
ing with this subject in the fourth book of his poem, seems almost like 
a commentary on the creed of Democritus in this regard. 


An illustration of the characteristic Epicurean method of account- 
ing for physical phenomena is afforded in the passage on earthquakes 
in the sixth book, where Lucretius, following his master, is in accord 
with Democritus in assigning these disturbances to a variety of 
causes. Epicurus, after specifying certain reasons for earthquakes, 
naively says: καὶ κατ᾽ ἄλλους δὲ πλείους τρόπους τὰς κινήσεις ταύτας τῆς γῆς 
γίνεσθαι. ” 

We are indebted to Seneca for what Munro calls a better illustra- 
tion of Lucretius in this connection than the extant writings of Epi- 
curus himself provide, since the larger works of the latter, which 
Lucretius had no means of consulting, were available to Seneca, who 
says: Veniamus nunc ad eos qui omnia ista quae retiuli in causa esse dix- 
erunt aut ex his plura. Democritus plura putat. Aut enim motum ali- 
quando spiritu fiert, aliquando aqua, aliquando utrogue. . . . Om- 
nes istas posse esse causas Epicurus ait pluresque alias temptat et alios gut 
aliquid unum ex istis esse adfirmaverunt corripil, etc. (Nat. Quaest. 
Vi-r20.) Attention has already been called to the fact that palpable 
imitations of Democritus have been attmbuted to Epicurus. It has 
also been maintained that Lucretius made liberal use of the same 
authority. The words ordo, positura, figurae, which appear in the 
same succession and with. the same technical significance in 1, 685 
and II, 1021, have been traced to Democritus, by whom their Greek 
equivalents were employed according to the testimony of two author- 
ities. Aristotle says: 


Δημοκρίτῳ μὲν οὖν τρεῖς διαφορὰς ἔοικεν οἰομένῳ εἶναι " τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὑποκείμενον 
σῶμα τὴν ὕλην ἕν καὶ ταὐτόν, διαφέρειν δὲ ἢ ῥυσμῷ ὅ ἐστι σχῆμα, ἢ τροπῆ ὅ ἐστι 
θέσις, ἢ διαθιγῇ ὅ ἐστι τάξις. * : 





1 Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, VU, p. 285. 

2 Diogenes Laertius X, 105, 106. 

3’ Munro, II, p. 370. 

4Metaph., VII, 2, p. 1042, ὁ. 11. Munro, 11, p. 87. 


ates eo 
Sat 4 
: 





DEMOCRITUS., 53 


Simplicius, referring to the doctrines of Democritus, says: 


τρεῖς δέ εἰσιν αὗται ῥυσμὸς τροπὴ διαθιγή, ταὐτὸν δὲ εἰπεῖν σχῆμα Kal θέσις Kal 
τάξις . | 

The theory that Lucretius enjoyed an intimate acquaintance with - 
the writings of Democritus must not be pressed too far, however, 
since in all probability the philosopher of Abdera was better known 
to later writers than to Lucretius and his contemporaries. Two 
generations after the De Rerum Natura was published, in the era of 
Tiberius, Thrasylus wrote an introduction to the writings of the 
famous atomist. 

τὰ δὲ βιβλία αὐτοῦ καὶ Θρασύλος dvayéypade κατὰ τάξιν οὕτως ὡσπερεὶ Kal τὰ 


Πλάτωνος, κατὰ τετραλογίαν, says Diogenes Laertius.? It is apparent 


that in~ the study of Democritus the opportunities of Lucretius did 
not equal those of his successors. 


But while Lucretius agrees in many of the principles of his philos- 
ophy with Democritus and offers similar elucidations of physical phe- 
nomena, he does not hesitate to differ from him in important particulars. 
The most significant divergence between the positions of these two 
men is found in the celebrated passage on the declination of the 
atoms in the second book. The doctrine of Democritus concerning 
the origin of motion and the subsequent formation of the visible uni- 


- yerse is attacked with firmness but courtesy. Doubtless the admira- 


tion of Lucretius for Democritus impelled him to treat a subject, 
which he knew to be of the utmost significance to his system, with 
far more considerateness for his rival than he was accustomed to show 
toward opponents. The early atomists, of whom Leucippus and 
Democritus are the representative figures, explained the facts of 
nature neither on the ground of chance nor of design, but referred 
them to natural and necessary causes. Starting with the postulate 
which the Epicureans adopted, that atoms and the void consti- 
tute the whole of nature, they sought the origin of motion in gravi- 
tation. The weight of the atoms, they declared, is the eternal cause 
of their movement. The velocity with which these atoms proceed 
through space is conditioned on their mass. The larger and the 

1 Ritter et Preller, Hist. δά. Gracae, 148 B. 

7 TX, 45- 


54 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


heavier naturally fall with greater swiftness than the smaller and 
lighter. They stream down through the void in perpendicular lines, 
but the rapidity with which the heavy atoms descend enables them to 
overtake and impinge on the lighter and slower ones, in consequence 
of which there are deflections and repulsions, which set up at length 
a rotary movement of matter from which was evolved the entire order 
of the universe.1 That by means of collisions and interminglings the 
worlds and all they contain were produced, is the doctrine of Epi- 
curus no less than of Democritus; but there is a fundamental differ- 
ence in their respective methods of accounting for the beginnings of 
the process. And Lucretius has presented the arguments against the 
Democritean hypothesis with great force. 

The first reason adduced by the poet for rejecting the theory of 
Democritus is that it is inadequate to the task of accounting for the 
existence of the universe, being founded upon a false physical prop- 
osition. For the statement that the heavier atoms will ultimately 
strike the lighter in their perpendicular plunge through space is in- 
validated by the fact that in a vacuum all bodies move with the same 
rapidity. 

Quod st forte aliquis credit graviora polesse 
Corpora, quo citius rectum per inane feruntur, 
Incidere ex supero levioribus atque tla plagas 
Gignere quae possint genitals reddere motus, 
‘Avius a vera longe ratione recedit. 

Nam per aquas guaecumque cadunt aique aera rarum, 
Haec pro ponderibus casus celerare necessest 
Proplerea quia corpus aquae naturaque tenvis 
Aeris haut possunt aeque rem quamque morari, 
Sed cititus cedunt gravioribus exsuperata; 

At contra nulli de nulla parte neque ullo 
Tempore inane potest vacuum subsistere ret, 
Quin, sua quod natura petit, concedere pergat; 
Omnia, quapropler debent per inane quietum 





1 οἱ περὶ Δημόκριτον καὶ ὕστερον ᾿Εἰπίκουρος τὰς ἀτόμους πάσας ὁμοφυεῖς οὔσας 
βάρος ἔχειν φασί, τῷ δὲ εἰναί τινα βαρύτερα ἐξωθούμενα τὰ κουφότερα ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν 
ὑφιζανόντων ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω φέρεσθαι " καὶ οὕτω λέγουσιν οὗτοι δοκεῖν τὰ μὲν κοῦφα εἷ- 
vat τὰ δὲ βαρέα. Simplicius in Ritter et Preller, 140 e. 


Secu ac, 


DEMOCRITUS. 55 


Aeque ponderibus non aequts concita ferri. 
Haud igitur poterunt levioribus incidere umquam 
Ex supero graviora neque ictus gignere per se 
Quit varient motus per quos natura gerat res." 

In arguing the equal rapidity of the atoms through space and the 
consequent impossibility of atom overtaking atom in the eternal de- 
scent, and thus rendering generation and combination inconceivable 
without some variation of the downward sweep or the interference of 
the divine will, which he distinctly disavows, Lucretius follows Ep- 
icurus, who says: 

Kal μὴν καὶ ἰσοταχεῖς ἀναγκαῖον τὰς ἀτόμους εἶναι, ὅταν διὰ τοῦ κενοῦ εἰσφέρ- 


ὠνται μηθενὸς ἀντικόπτοντος. οὔτε γὰρ τὰ βαρέα θᾶττον οἰσθήσεται τῶν μικρῶν 


καὶ κούφων, ὅταν γε δὴ μηδὲν ἀπαντᾷ αὐτοῖς " οὔτε τὰ μικρὰ [βραδύτερον] τῶν pey- 
άλων, πάντα πόρον σύμμετρον ἔχοντα, ὅταν μηθὲν μηδὲ ἐκείνοις ἀντικόπτῃ .2 

To account for the collision of the atoms and the resultant com- 
bination of matter and the formation of the worlds and their contents, 
Lucretius and Epicurus adopt an ingenious expedient. 


Corpora cum deorsum rectum per inane feruntur 
Ponderibus propris, se incerto tempore ferme 
Lncertisque locts spatio depellere paulum, 

Tantum quod momen mutatum dicere possts. 
Quod nisi declinare solerent, omnia deorsum, 
lmbris uti guttae, caderent per inane profundum, 
Nec foret offensus natus nec plaga creata 
Principits: ita nil umquam natura creasset.* 


Lucretius seems to have realized how dangerous a thing it was to 
introduce this physical contrivance into his system, for he attempts to 
guard his readers from the error of supposing that the atoms can 
travel downward in oblique lines, as would be the case if the swerve 
were more than the slightest conceivable variation from the perpen- 


dicular. 





ΕἼΤ, 225-42. 

*Diogenes Laertius X, 61. This objection, it is asserted, was borrowed from 
Aristotle. Cf. Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 445, 5. Masson Atomic 
Theory of Lucretius, p. 48. 

ΜΠ 217-24. 


56 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Quare eliam aique etiam paulum inclinare necessest 
Corpora, nec plus quam minimum, ne fingere motus 
Obliquos videamur et id res vera refutet., 

Namque hoc in promptu manifestumque esse videmus, 
Pondera, quantum in sest, non posse obliqua meare, 
Ex supero cum praecipitant, quod cernere possts, 
Sed nil omnino recia regione viat 

Dechinare quis est qui possit cernere sese?' 


It also seems apparent from the phraseology employed that Lucre- 
tius conceived his atoms as swerving from their own inner impulse, 
the words se depellere especially pointing to this conclusion.’ 

The testimony of Cicero as a student of Epicureanism, though he 
ridicules the expedient, is valuable in this connection as to the belief 
of that school in the necessity of using the swerve to account for 
combination and generation, and also as to their faith in the inherent 
tendency of the atoms to diverge almost imperceptibly by their own 
impulse: 


Epicurus autem in quibus sequitur Democritum, non fere labitur . 
wllae Epicurt propriae ruinae censet: enim eadem ila indiuidua et solida 
corpora ferri deorsum suo pondere ad lineam, hunc naturalem esse om- 
nium corporum motum. Deinde tbidem homo aculus, cum tlud occurrered, 
st omnia deorsus e regione ferrentur et ut dixi ad lineam, nunquam fore 
ul atomus altera alteram posset attingere waque . . attulit rem com- 
menticiam, declinare dixit atomum perpaullum, quo nihil posset fiert min- 
us, twa effict conplextones et copulationes et adhaestones atomorum inter se, 
ex quo efficeretur mundus omnesque partes mundi guaeque in eo essent. 
Quae cum res tota Ποία sit pueriliter, tum ne efficit quidem, quod vult. 
Nam et ipsa declinatio ad lbidinem fingilur (ait enim declinare atomum 
sine causa; quo nthil turpius physico, quam fiert quicquam sine causa 
dicere), et ulum motum naturalem omnium ponderum, ut ipse conshituit, e 
regione inferiorem locum petentium sine causa eripuit atomis nec tamen 
1d, cuius causa haec finxerat, assecutus est. Nam st omnes atomi declin- 
abunt, nullae umquam cohaerescent, sive aliae declinabunt, aliae suo nutu’ 
recte ferentur, primum erit hoc quast provincias atomis dare, quae recte, 





1 TI, 243-50. 
? Munro, II, p. 132. 


DEMOCRITUS., 57 


quae oblique ferantur, deinde eadem ila atomorum, in quo etiam Democ- 
ritus haeret, turbulenta concursito hunc mundi ornatum efficere non poterit.' 


But not only does the doctrine of the swerve enable Lucretius to 
explain the contact of the atoms in space, but it also serves-a far more 
important purpose. It affords a rational basis for the doctrine of free 
will, which the Epicureans maintained against the Stoics, the early 
Atomists and other schools of thought. If the atoms had no power 
to decline, neither would men, constructed by a fortuitous concourse 
of these atoms, have the ability to move at will. The power of dec- 
lination in the atoms corresponds to free action in dnimals and men, 
and according to Lucretius the former is the cause of the latter. It 
has been conjectured that had not Lucretius required this theory to ex- 
plain the mystery of free will, he would have left his whirling atoms to” 
take care of themselves, nor bothered his soul over the process of 
world formation. But the desire to avoid the doctrine of eternal ne- 
cessity or fate impelled him to invent this method of accounting for 
the freedom of the will.? Here Lucretius again followed his master, 
Epicurus, who—cum viderel, st atomt ferrentur in locum inferiorem 
suople pondere, nihil fore in nostra potestate, quod esset earum motus cer- 
lus ed necessarius, invenit quo modo necesstiatem effugeret, quod videlicet 
Democritum fugerat; ait atomum, cum pondere et gravitate derecto deor- 
sus feratur, declinare paullulum.*” . . . Epicurus declinahone 
alomi vitart necessitatem fati putat. Ltaque tertius quidam motus oritur ex- 
tra pondus οἱ plagam, cum declinat atomus intervallo minimo—id appellat 
dxiotrov—,; guam declinationem sine causa fiert st minus verbis, re cog- 
itur confitert. . . . Hanc Epicurus rationem induxit 0b eam rem, quod 
veritus est ne si semper atomus gravitate ferretur naturali ac necessaria, 
nthil liberum nobis esset, cum ita moveretur animus, ut atomorum motu cog- 
eretur. Id Democritus auctor atomorum accipere maluit, necessitate 
omnia fieri, quam a corporibus individuis naturalis motus avellere.* | 


Epicurus doubtless did adopt the hypothesis of the declination or 
swerve—as Cicero declares—in order to avoid the Democritean 





1 Cicero, De Finitbus, I, 6, 18-co. 

2 Munro, II, p. 136. 

% Cicero, De Natura Deorum, |, 25, 69. 
*Cicero, De Fato, 10, 22, 23. 


58 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


doctrine of eternal necessity. He has emphatically denounced this 
teaching in his famous letter to Menaeceus, and despite his purpose 
to remove the gods from all participation in human affairs, he says:. 


κρεῖττον ἦν τῷ περὶ θεῶν μύθῳ κατακολουθεῖν ἢ τῇ τῶν φυσικῶν εἱμαρμένῃ Sov- 
Aeverv, | 

This conviction Lucretius seems to share. 

The adoption of the swerve is from the standpoint of Cicero a 
thoroughly absurd, if not dishonest, proceeding. He cannot admit 
that the conceit.is rational.  Declinat, inguit, atomus. Primum cur ὃ 
Aliam enim quandam vim motus habebant a Democrito inpulsionis, quam 
plagam ille appellat, a te, Epicure, gravitatis et ponderis. Quae ergo 
nova causa in natura est qua declinet atomusP Aut num sorhuntur 
‘inter se, quae decline, quae nonP Aut cur minimo declinent intervallo, 
maiorenonP Autcur declineni uno minimo,non declinent duobus aul tribus P? 
Optare hoc quidem est, non disputare. Nam neque extrinsecus inpulsam 
atomum loco movert et declinare dicis, neque in illo inant, per quod fera- 
fur atomus, quicquam fuisse causae, Cur ea non e regione ferretur, nec 
in ipsa atomo mutationis aliquid factum est, quam ob rem naturalem mo- 
tum sui ponderis non teneret. Lta cum attulisset nu/lim causam, quae is- 
tam declinationem efficeret, tamen aliquid sibt dicere videtur, cum id dicat 
guod omnium mentes aspernentur ac respuant.” 

Nec . . . est causa cur Epicurus fatum extimescat et ab atomis 
petat praesidium easque de via deducat et uno tempore suscipial res duas 
mnenodabiles, unam, ut sine causa fiat aliquid—ex quo exisiet ut de nthilo 
guippiam fal . . . , alteram, ut cum duo individua per inanitatem 
Serantur, alterum e regione moveatur, alterum declinet.* 

Of course in this asumption of the doctrine of free will Lucretius 
antagonizes the Stoics, of whom Plutarch says in this relation: 


᾿Επικούρῳ μὲν γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἀκαρὲς ἐγκλῖναι τὴν ἄτομον συγχωροῦσιν ( οἱ Στωικοὶ) 
ὡς ἀναίτιον ἐπεισάγοντι κίνησιν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. * 


But of the conflict with this school we are to speak at some length 








' Diogenes Laertius, X, 134. 

2De Fato, 20, 46. 

376. 9, 18. 

*De Animae Procreatione in Tim. Plat. Usener, p. 201. 


DEMOCRITUS. 59 


later. It is of some significance, however, to observe at this point 
that Cicero approaches more closely to the school which denies free 
will than to the defenders of this doctrine, though he maintains a 
theory of fate or destiny which is in virtual accord with the highest 
conceptions of Providence, defending on the one hand the decrees of 
Deity and on the other the qualified liberty of man. He commends 
Democritus for adhering to the doctrine of necessity as being con- 
sistent with his physical hypothesis,’ and does not hesitate to declare 
tLat Epicurus is devoid of judgment. Referring to the expedient of 
the swerve, he says: Hoc dicere furpius est quam wlud, quod vult, non 
posse defendere.” 


Carneades, he asserts, has produced a far better method of ac- 
counting for free will. Acufus Carneades, quit docebat posse Epicureos 
suam causam sine hac commenticia declinatione defendere. Nam cum 
docereni esse posse quendam animt motum voluntarium, td fuit defend mel- 
ius quam.introducere declinationem . . . Cum enim concesstssent 
- motum nullum esse sine causa, non concederent omnia quae ferent, fiert 
causis antecedentibus ; voluntatis enim nostrae non esse Causas externas et 
antecedentis.* 

But the argument which Lucretius makes in behalf of free will is 
worthy of respectful attention despite the fact that Cicero, Plutarch 
and other writers ridiculed the Epicurean expedient. For there is no 
more serious piece of reasoning in the entire poem than that which 
Lucretius devotes to the theory of atomic declination. The philos- 
ophy of Epicurus has ‘emancipated him from slavery to that supersti- 
tion, which attributes to the deities interference with the affairs of 
_men, and from the fear of unseen powers which is consequent upon 
this delusion. But he has no sooner escaped from this.terror than he 
is confronted by.an equally forbidding phantom—eternal necessity or 
fate, which annuls the free action of men and reduces them to mere 
machines of destiny. If the universe is the product of relentless law, 
each process following a fixed and unalterable order, cause upon 
cause, motion upon motion, in everlasting and unbroken sequence, 
then there can not possibly be any free will. How to elude, on the 





1De Fato, passim. 
2De Natura Deorum, 1, 25, 70. 
3De Fato, 11, 23. 


60 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


one hand, the tyranny of the gods and, on the other, the thralldom of 
necessity, is the problem which was presented to Epicurus, and the 
swerve was to him a sufficient solution of the puzzle. Without this 
device he cannot account, from his point of view, for the freedom of 
the human will. Lucretius fairly exposes the difficulty— 


Denique st semper motus conectitur omnis 

Et vetere exoritur semper novus ordine certo 

Nec declinando faciunt primordia motus 
Principium quoddam quod fati foedera rumpat, 

Ex infinito ne causam causa sequatur, 

Libera per terras unde haec animantibus exstat 
Unde est haec, inquam, fatis avolsa potestas 

Per quam progredimur quo ducit quemque voluntas, 
Declinamus item motus nec tempore certo 

Nec regione loci certa, sed ubi ipsa tulit mens δ" 


But on what ground does Lucretius assert his doctrine of free will? 
He makes his confident appeal to consciousness and experience. Free 
will is revealed first in initiating movement. ‘The impulse for action 
comes from the heart, and successively spreads through the various 
members of the body, and of this Lucretius presents a very forcible 
illustration. 


Nam dubio procul his rebus sua cuique voluntas 
Principium dat et hinc motus per membra rigantur. 
Nonne vides etam patefacts lempore puncto 
Carceribus non posse tamen prorumpere equorum 
Vim cupidam tam de subito quam mens αὐτοί ipsa? 
Omnis enim totum per corpus materiat 

Copia conquirt debet, concita per artus 

Omnis ut studium mentis conixa sequatur ; 

Ut videas initum moitus a corde creart 

Ex animique voluntate id procedere primum, 
[nde dari porro per totum corpus et artus.* 








111, 251-60. 
2/6., 261-71. 


DEMOCRITUS. 61 


But free will is also apparent in resisting compulsory movement, 
which differs from voluntary action in that it results from a blow or 
impulse from without. 


Nec similest ut cum impulst procedimus ictu 
Viribus alterius magnis magnogque coactu,; 
Nam ‘um materiem totius corporis omnem 
Perspicuumst nobts invitts tre rapique, 
Donec eam refrenavit per membra voluntas. 
lamne vides igitur, quamquam vis extera multos 
 Pellat et invitos cogat procedere saepe 
- Praecipitesque rapt, tamen esse in pectore nostro 
Quiddam quod contra pugnare obstareque possttP 
- Cuius ad arbitrium quoque copia materiat 
Cogitur interdum flecti per membra per artus 
. Et proiecta refrenatur retroque residtt.* 


The conclusion derived from these considerations is that there 
must be, in addition to movement by weight or gravity, κατὰ στάθμην, 
and movement by blows, or external influence, κατὰ πληγήν, the 
swerve, which has already been described. 


Quare in seminibus quoque idem fateare necessest, 
Esse aham praeter plagas et pondera causam 
Motibus, unde haec est nobis innata potestas, 

De nilo quoniam fiert nil posse videmus. 

Pondus enim prohibel ne plagis omnia fiant 
Externa quasi vt; sed ne mens tpsa necessum 
Lntestinum habeal cuncts in rebus agendts 

Et devicta quasi hoc cogatur ferre patique, 

ld fact exiguum clinamen principiorum 

Nec regione loci certa nec tempore certo.* 


Upon a recapitulation of this argument one finds that, while it is 
unsatisfactory, mainly because it is impossible to account for the op- 
erations of the intellect on a purely materialistic hypothesis, and 
while Lucretius in specifying three causes of movement confuses 





1 ΤΙ, 272-83. 
21|, 284-93. 


62 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


thought, having first asserted that movement by collision results from 
the swerve and afterward having placed the swerve before us as a 
separate cause of movement, yet the reasoning, from his standpoint, 
is close and strong. It amounts to this: We are conscious of the 
power of the will to originate action, which, beginning at the center, 
extends under our personal direction through the whole physical 
frame. We are also conscious of the difference between voluntary 
action and necessary movement. When a body is moved by an ex-' 
ternal impulse, it moves all at once. And we easily discriminate 
between moving of our own volition and being forced to move. In 
the latter case we experience a feeling of resistance in our breast 
which impels us to withstand the energy applied to us. The atoms 
which compose body are subject to the same influences. There is 
the impulse of gravity, the impulse of external force, but there must 
‘be also in all atoms, and especially in those finer ones which form 
the mind, the power to vary at will from the line of perpendicular 
descent. ‘This is inevitable, for if the soul has this power, as we 
know from experience it has, and the atoms which compose soul 
have it not, then the first principle of the atomistic philosophy— 
ex nthilo nthil fit—is outraged. There is no way, according to Lu- 
cretius,.to explain the existence of free will in men—the highest re- 
sult of the atomistic evolution—except by admitting that it is an 
active principle in original matter. And there is no satisfactory 
method of accounting for this inherent quality of the atoms except 
to acknowledge the chnamen principiorum nec regione loci certa nec 
tempore certo.' 

An element of respect for Democritus enters into this discussion 
on the part of Lucretius, who wished to make as distinct as possible 
his divergence from the older philosopher, while he lingers over the 
subject to show that his conclusions have not been inconsiderately 
taken, and also that he may combat the Stoics.* 

_ Other points of controversial contact between the Epicurean sys- 
tem and Democritus, as disclosed by the poem of Lucretius, seem of 
-secondary importance, and yet are sufficiently characteristic to demand 





1Masson, Atomic Theory of Lucretius, pp. 127, 28. 
2 Munro, II, p. 136. 


DEMOCRITUS. 63 


attention. Democritus, as we learn chiefly from Aristotle and 
Diogenes Laertius, held that the atoms are not-only infinite in multi- 
tude, but also in the number of their shapes. The grounds of this 
opinion were that ‘‘there is no reason why one shape should belong 
to them more than to another;” that ‘‘ only on this supposition can 
_it be explained that things that are so infinitely diverse are subject 
to so many changes and appear so differently to different people.” ! 
Aristotle says: 

Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ Λεύκιππος ἐκ σωμάτων ἀδιαιρέτων τἄλλα συγκεῖσθαί φασι, 
ταῦτα ὃ ἄπειρα καὶ τὸ πλῆθος εἶναι καὶ τὰς μορφάς, αὐτὰ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὰ διαφέρειν 
τούτοι: ἐξ ὧν εἰσι καὶ θέσει καὶ τάξει τούτων." 


Diogenes Laertius declares that Democritus believed— 
kal τὰς ἀτόμους δὲ ἀπείρους εἶναι κατὰ μέγεθος καὶ πλῆθος. ὃ 


Against this doctrine Epicurus is emphatic. He says: 


πρός Te τούτοις τὰ ἄτομα τῶν σωμάτων Kal μεστά, ἐξ ὧν Kal ai συγκρίσεις 
γίνονται καὶ εἰς ἃ διαλύονται, ἀπερίπληπτά ἐστι ταῖς διαφοραῖς τῶν σχημάτων ᾿ 
οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν γενέσθαι τὰς τοσαύτας διαφορὰς ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν σχημάτων περι- 
εἰλημμένων. καὶ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην δὲ σχημάτισιν ἀπλῶς ἄπειροί εἷσιν αἱ ὅμοιαι, ταῖς 
δὲ διαφοραῖς οὐχ ἀπλῶς ἄπειροι ἀλλὰ μόνον ἀπερίπληπτοι. * 

Lucretius adheres to his master in that he states and argues that 
the number of atoms is finite, but he does not, like Epicurus, admit 
that the number 'is incalculably great. He refrains from declaring 
whether it is small or large. But he adduces cogent reasons for his 
belief. In order to have an infinite number of shapes of atoms, it 
would be necessary to have atoms infinite in magnitude. For sup- 
pose an atom has a limited numberof least parts; their permutations 
will only give a limited number of shapes. To secure an infinite 
number of shapes, therefore, it would be necessary to keep adding 
parts to infinity, and thus we should eventually have atoms of infinite 
size, which has been demonstrated to be an impossibility. Again, 
were the shapes of atoms infinite in number, there would be no limit 
to the beauty of color and sound, or to that which is offensive. But 








1 Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11, p. 223. 
2/b., p. 224, Ἢ, 
3 1X,°44. 


*Diogenes Laertius, X, 42. 


64 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


we know there is a limit to all this, as also to the heat and cold of 
the year, summer’s heat and winter's cold being two points between 
which various degrees of temperature proceed in their order.’ 


Lucretius mentions Democritus by name when he combats, as he 
feels compelled to do, this philosopher's theory of the formation of 
the soul; but, while he deprecates his doctrine, he alludes to its 
author in terms of compliment. 


Lilud in his rebus nequaquam sumere possts, 
Democriti quod sancta virt sententia pontt, 
Corporis alque animt primordia singula privis 
Adposita alternis variare, ac nectere memtra.” 


To say that between every pair of atoms which compose the body 
there is a finer atom of the soul, ‘is to Lucretius a wholly groundless 
statement. In his judgment the atoms of the body are many times 
as numerous as those of the soul, and therefore distributed at much 
wider intervals than Democritus supposed. 


Nam cum mullo sunt animae elementa minora 
Quam quibus e corpus nobis et viscera constant, 
Tum numero quoque concedunt et rara per artus 
Dissita sunt dumtaxat; ut hoc promittere possts, 
Cuantula prima queant nobis iniecta ciere 
Corpora sensiferos motus in corpore, tanta 
L[ntervalla tenere exordia prima anemat. 

Nam neque pulveris interdum sentimus adhaesum 
Corpore nec membris incussam sidere cretam, 
Nec nebulam noctu neque aranet tenvia fila 
Obvia sentimus, quando obrelimur euntes, 

Nec supera capul etusdem cecidisse vietam 
Vestem nec plumas avium papposque volantis 
Qui nimiz levitate cadunt plerumque gravatim, 
Nec repentis ttum cuiusviscumque animantis 
Sentimus nec priva pedum vestigia quaeque, 
Corpore quae in nostro culices et cetera ‘ponunt. 





ITI, 478-521. 
11, 370-3. 


DEMOCRITUS. - ARS 


Usque adeo prius est in nobis multa ciendum, 
Quam primordia sentiscant concussa animat 
Semina corporibus nostris inmixta per artus, 
Et quam in his intervallis tuditantia possint 
Concursare cotre et dissultare vicissim.* 


This point of difference between Epicurus and Democritus Munro 
declares we should never have known μέ for fhis passage in Lucre- 
tius, for in many particulars the two were in accord on the question 
of the constitution of the soul as well as other subjects connected 
with the atomistic philosophy.? 

On the origin of verbal designations, the teaching of Epicurus and 
Lucretius seems to have been at variance with the doctrine of 
Democritus. In his letter to Herodotus Epicurus says: 

τὰ ὀνόματα ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὴ θέσει γενέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὰς τὰς φύσεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων 
καθ᾽ ἕκαστα ἔθνη ἴδια πασχούσας πάθη καὶ ἴδια λαμβανούσας φαντάσματα ἰδίως 
τὸν ἀέρα ἐκπέμπειν στελλόμενον ὑφ᾽ ἑκάστων τῶν παθῶν καὶ τῶν φαντασμάτων, ὡς 
ἄν ποτε καὶ ἣ παρὰ τοὺς τόπους τῶν ἐθνῶν διαφορὰ ἢ " ἵστερον δὲ κοινῶς καθ᾽ ἕκ- 
acta ἔθνη τὰ ἴδια τεθῆναι πρὸς τὸ τὰς δηλώσεις ἧττον ἀμφιβόλους γενέσθαι ἀλλή- 
λοις καὶ συντομωτέρως δηλουμένας κ.τ΄.λ .ὃ 

Terms of description and the language of common life were not 
directly imparted, but are the product of a necessary evolution. Na- 
ture and the multiplying needs of men prompted them toinvent forms 
of speech. This is the conviction of Lucretius, who says: 


At varios linguae sonitus natura subegit 

_ Mittere et utlitas expressit nomina rerum, 
Non alia longe ratione atque tpsa videtur 
Protrahere ad gestum pueros infanta linguae, 
Cum facil ut digito quae sint praesentia monstrent. 
Sentit enim vim quisque suam quoad possit abuit. 


All creatures feel their natural powers before these powers have 
been developed. The calf butts before his horns protrude; panthers 
and lions fight ere teeth and claws have appeared; and birds attempt 
flight before their pinnions have been fully plumed. 





Ξ ΠῚ, 374-05. 
2Munro, II, p. 194. 
8 Diogenes Laertius, X, 75, 76. 


66 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Proinde putare aliquem tum nomina aistribuisse 
Rebus et inde homines didicisse vocabula prima, 
Desiperest. 


How could any one man know what he ought to teach, and how 
could he succeed in inducing other men to learn from him? And 
what hinders that man should apply different sounds to denote 
various things, when, as is well known, the brutes pursue this 
process; as for example, dogs, horses, sea-gulls, crows? 


Ergo si varit sensus animalia cogunt, 

Muta tamen cum sint, varias emitlere voces, 
Quanto mortalis magis aecumst lum potuisse 
Dissimilis alia atque alia res voce notare! ' 


Such is the reasoning of Lucretius, with which it is asserted De- 
mocritus did not agree.’ 


The presentation of a variety of reasons for the rising of the Nile, 
a choice of which the student of natural phenomena is entitled to 
make for himself, is very characteristic of the Epicurean method of 
dealing with physical facts, and also brings Lucretius into quasi con- 
flict with Democritus, who according to Diodorus held a positive 
theory of the cause of this phenomenon, which is included among 
others asserted by Lucretius as possible.* | 


Fit quoque uti pluviae forsan magis ad caput et 
Tempore eo fiant, quod elesia flabra aquilonum 
Nubila coniciunt in eas tunc omnia parts. 
Scilicet ad mediam regionem erecta diet 

Cum convenerunt, 101 ad altos denique montis 
Contrusae nubes coguntur vique premuntur.* 


This explanation Lucretius gives no higher place than he assigns 
to the popular opinion, which Democritus intended to refute. 
There is also an implied difference between Lucretius and Democ- 





1V, 1028-90. 
2Munro, II, p. 335. 
3 Jb., p. 378. 
*VI, 729-34. 








DEMOCRITUS. 67 


ritus on the subject of the gods; for on this matter the poet has ac- 
curately represented Epicurus, who, according to Augustinus, is at 
issue with Democritus. 


Quamquam Democritus etiam hoc distare in naturalibus quaestionibus 
ab Epicuro dicitur, quod iste sentit inesse concurstoni atomorum vim quan- 
_dam animalem et spiritalem ; qua vi eum credo et imagines ipsas divin- 
itale praedilas dicere, non omnes omnium rerum, sed deorum; et prin- 
cipia mentis esse in universis, quibus divinitatem tribuit, et animanies wm- 
agines, quae vel prodesse nobis soleant vel nocere: Epicurus vero neque 
aliquid in principiis rerum ponit praeter atomos id est corpuscula quaedam 
tam minuta, ut etiam dividi nequeant neque sentirt aut visu auttactu possint; 
τς guorum corpusculorum concursu fortuito et mundos innumerabiles el animan- 
tia οἱ ipsas animas fiert dicit et deos, quos humana forma non in aliquo 
mundo sed extra mundos atque inter mundos conshtuit; et non vull omnino 
aliquid praeter corpora cogitare, quae famen ut cogitet imagines dicit ab 
ipsis rebus, quas atomis formari putat, defluere atque in animum introire 
subtiliores quam sunt illae imagines quae ad oculosveniuni. nam et videndi 
causam hanc esse dicit, ingentes quasdam imagines tla ut universum mun- 
dum conplectaniur extrinsecus.' 





1 Usener, p. 237. 


68 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Il. 


PHILOSOPHERS TOWARD WHOM LUCRETIUS IS HOsTILE. 


If the criticisms of Lucretius upon those philosophers with whose 
theories he disagrees appear in some instances to be unduly severe, 
it must be remembered that in his master he had an example of mer- 
ciless and caustic censure. The references of Epicurus to the ex- 
ponents of other schools of philosophy not infrequently descend to 
scurrility. Contemptuous reflections upon Nausiphanes, Plato, Ar- 
istotle, Protagoras, Heraclitus and even Democritus have been at- 
tributed to him. 

καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα βίβλιοις Tats περὶ φύσεως τὰ πλείστα ταὐτά, 
[τε] λέγειν καὶ ἀντιγράφειν ἐν αὐταῖς ἄλλοις τε καὶ Ναυσιφάνει [τὰ πλεῖστα], κα 
αὐτῇ λέξει φάσκειν οὕτως ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἴτωσαν " εἶχε γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ὠδίνων τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ στό- 
ματος καύχησιν τὴν σοφιστικήν, καθά περ καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ τῶν ἀνδραπόδων. καὶ 
αὐτὸν ᾿Εἰπίκουρον ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς περὶ Ναυσιφάνους λέγειν Tatra ἤγαγεν ai- 
τὸν εἰς ἔκστασιν τοιαύτην, ὥστε μοι λοιδορεῖσθαι καὶ ἀποκαλεῖν διδάσκαλον. πλεύ- 
μονά τε αὐτὸν ἐκάλει καὶ ἀγράμματον καὶ ἀπατεῶνα καὶ πόρνην " τούς τε περὶ Πλά. 
τωνα Διονυσοκόλακας καὶ αὐτὸν Πλάτωνα χρυσοῦν, καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλη ἄσωτον, (ὃν) 
καταφαγόντα τὴν πατρῴαν οὐσίαν στρατεύεσθαι καὶ φαρμακοπωλεῖν: φορμοφόρον 
τε Πρωταγόραν καὶ γραφέα Δημοκρίτου καὶ ἐν κώμαις γράμματα διδάσκειν * Ἥράκ- 
λειτόν τε κυκητήν " καὶ Δημόκριτον Ληρόκριτον " καὶ ᾿Αντίδωρον Σιαννίδωρον " τούς 
τε ΚΚυνικοὺς ἐχθροὺς τῆς ᾿Εἰλλάδος" καὶ τοὺς διαλεκτικοὺς πολυφθόρους" Πύρρωνα 
δὲ ἀμαθῆ καὶ ἀπαίδευτον. ! : 

The most notable thing in this passage, of course, is the fact that 
even Democritus, to whom Epicurus was so much indebted, comes 
in for his share of obloquy. Cicero confirms in a large degree the 
reports preserved by Diogenes Laertius. 


Nam Phaedro nihil elegantius, nthil humanius,; sed stomachabatur 
senex, St quid asperius dixeram, cum Epicurus Aristotelem vexarit con- 
tumeliosissime, Phaedont Socratico turpissime male dixerit, Aletrodort, 
sodalis sui, fratrem, Timocraten, guia nescio quid in philosophia drs- 





1 Diogenes Laertius, X, 7, 8. 


HERACLITUS. | 69 


sentiret, totis voluminibus conciderit, in Democritum ipsum, quem seculus 
est, μον ingratus, Nausiphanen, magistrum suum, a quo (non) nthil di- 
dicerat, tam male acceperit.' 


With such traditions before him and filled with an idolatrous ven- 
eration for his master, it is net strange that Lucretius exhibited some 
severity in the treatment of his controversial antagonists, albeit his 
language is mild compared with that of Epicurus. _ 


I. HERAaAcLIitTus. 


Of the persons referred to by Lucretius in his poem, Heraclitus 
alone is severely denounced by name. It is interesting to note that 
this philosopher was himself abusive in his manner toward his com- 
petitors and contemporaries. Such honored names as Hesiod, Pyth- 
agoras, Xenophanes and Homer fell under the ban of his reprobation. 

μεγαλόφρων δὲ γέγονε παρ᾽ ὁντιναοῦν, kal ὑπερόπτης" ὡς Kal ἐκ τοῦ συγγράμμα- 
Tos αὐτοῦ δῆλον, ἐν ᾧ φησι, Πολυμαθίη νόον οὐ διδάσκει. Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἂν ἐδίδαξε 
καὶ Τυθαγόρην, αὐθίς τε ΞΞενοφάνεά τε καὶ “Exaratov. Εἶναι γὰρ ἕν τὸ σοφρὸν ἐπ- 
ίστασθαι γνώμην, ἥτε οἱ ἐγκυβερνήσει πάντα διὰ πάντων. τόν Ὅμηρον ἔφασκεν 
ἄξιον ἐκ τῶν ἀγώνων ἐκβάλλεσθαι καὶ ῥαπίζεσθαι, καὶ ᾿Αρχίλοχον ὁμοίως. 

At the same time, as has been pointed out by scholars, Heraclitus 
was influenced by some of the teachers whom he antagonized, nota- 
bly by Xenophanes, with whose views of the heavenly bodies he un- 
doubtedly sympathized.*® 

The avowed reason for the animosity of Lucretius toward Herac- 
litus, as exhibited in the passage now to be considered, is that he is 
the leader of those philosophers who assert that fire is the original 
essence from which everything has been derived. The Epicurean 
physics is arrayed against all systems that ascribe primordial matter 
to one, two or any limited number of substances. This of itself 
would be sufficient to bring the condemnation of Lucretius down 





1De Nat. Deor., 1, 93. 
2 Diogenes Laertius, UX, τ. 
8 Ueberweg, Hist. Phil., I, 39. 


70 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


upon the head of Heraclitus. But when the element chosen to 
stand for all matter 1s fire, the whole Stoic school seems to be in- 
volved, and the virulence of the Epicurean poet is largely explained, 
as will become more apparent later by the deathless hostility existing 
between the ‘‘porch” and the ‘‘garden.” It isa truly Epicurean 
and natural temper which displays itself in the lines with which Lu- 
-cretius begins the attack upon Heraclitus. 


Heraclitus init quorum dux proelia primus, 
Clarus οὐ obscuram linguam magts inter inants 
Quamde gravis inter Gratos qui vera requirunl. 
Omnia enim stolid magis admirantur amantique, 
Lnversts quae sub verbts latitantia cernunt, 
Veraque constituunt quae belle tangere possunt 
Auris et lepido quae sunt fucata sonore." 


The taunt of obscurity contained in these lines originated as much 
from the reputation given Heraclitus by several writers of antiquity, 
as from any personal conviction which possessed Lucretius. The 
title ὁ σκοτεινός was early applied to Heraclitus. 


ἄνδρες δ᾽ ἀξιόλογοι γεγόνασιν ἐν αὐτῇ τῶν μὲν παλαιῶν Ἡράκλειτός τε ὁ σκο- 
τεινός καλούμενος K.T.A, ” 


The earliest employment of this term in connection with Herachi- 
tus is said to be found in Ps. Aristotle, De Mundo, 5, unless this 
work is later than the time of Hannibal, in which case the passage 
in Livy, xxiii, 39, would indicate an earlier origin.® 

The testimony of Cicero is to the same effect as that already given, 
Herachtus, cognomenio qui σκοτεινός perhibetur, quia de natura nimis 
obscure memoravit.* 

Sed omnia vestri, Balbe, solent ad igneam vim referre Herachtum, ul 
opinor, sequentes, quem ipsum non omnes interpretantur uno modo, quit 
guoniam guid diceret intelligt nolutt, omittamus, etc.° 





11, 638-44. 

2 Strabon, XIV, 25 in Ritter et Preller, 22b. 
5’ Munro, II, 84. 

4 De Fin., ll, 18 

5 De Nat. Deor., Ul, 35. 


HERACLITUS. 71 


In ἃ similar tenor is the witness of Diogenes Laertius. 


ἀνέθηκε δ᾽ αὐτὸ els τὸ τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἱερόν, ὡς μέν τινες, ἐπιτηδεύσας ἀσαφέστε- 
ρον γράψαι, ὅπως οἱ δυνάμενοι προσίοιεν αὐτῴ καὶ μὴ ἐκ τοῦ δημώδους εὐκαταφρόν- 
nrov εἴη. τοῦτον δὲ καὶ ὁ Τίμων ὑπογράφει, λέγων. 
τοῖς δ᾽ ἕνι κοκκυστὴς ὀχλολοίδορος Ἡράκλειτος 
αἰνικτὴς ἀνόρουσε. 


_ Inthe letter from Darius, the son of Hystaspes, to Heraclitus we 
have further evidence of the recondite character of the Ephesian phil- 
osopher’s writings. 


τῶν δὲ πλείστων ἐποχὴν ἔχοντα’ ὥστε kal τοὺς ἐπιπλεῖστον μετεσχηκότας συγ- 
γραμμάτων, διαπορεῖσθαι τῆς ὀρθῆς δοκούσης γεγράφθαι παρά σοι διηγήσεως. 


The saying that a Delian diver was required to fathom the depths 
of his composition has been attributed both to Socrates and to a 
certain Crates, who is reputed to be the first person who brought the 
work of Heraclitus into Central Greece. 


A more favorable construction has, however, been placed upon the 
literary performances of Heraclitus by some authors, who declare in 
certain instances that his obscurity is due to the brevity with which 
he expresses himself. Others think that the figurative style of his 
speech has much to do with the difficulty of understanding him. 
Others attribute this fault to a certain loose method of expression; 
while the opinion is held in still other quarters that Heraclitus had 
no intention of explaining the matters which he proposed for consid- 
eration. uc accedit quod οἱ omnis ilorum temporum orato philoso- 
phiae difficiles aditus praebebat et ille proponere malebat quae sentiret quam 
exponere.* 


On the other hand, it is asserted that he sometimes wrote with 
lucidity and brilliancy. 


λαμπρῶς τε ἐνίοτε ἐν TO συγγράμματι Kal σαφῶς ἐκβάλλει, ὥστε kal τὸν νωθέσ-- 


θατον ῥᾳδίως γνῶναι καὶ δίαρμα ψυχῆς λαβεῖν’ ἥ βραχύτης καὶ τὸ βάρος τῆς ép- 
μηνείας ἀσύγκριτον." 





1 Diog. Laer., IX, 6. 
2 7b., IX, 13. 

ὁ Ritter et Preller, 234 
* Diog. Laer., 1X, 7. 


72 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


He himself compared his gravity with the seriousness of oracles 
when correctly interpreted. 


ὁ ἄναξ (οὗ τὸ μαντεῖόν ἐστι τὸ) ἐν Δελφοῖς οὔτε λέγει οὔτε κρύπτει, ἀλλὰ σημαίνει. 
σίβυλλα δὲ μαινομένῳ στόματι ἀγέλαστα καὶ ἀκαλλώπιστα καὶ ἀμύριστα φθεγ- 
γομένη χιλίων ἐτέων ἐξικνέεται τῇ φωνῇ διὰ τὸν θεὸν." ᾿ 


There are a few persons who doubtless will agree with Prof. Fer-. 
rier that Heraclitus is ‘‘the deepest probably, if also the darkest, of 
all the thinkers of antiquity.” 

The argument of Lucretius against Heraclitus betrays perhaps 
more clearly than any other controversial passage in his poem how 
dificult it is for him to argue from any standpoint except his own. 
His reasoning is neither as cogent nor as fair in this instance as in 
some other portions of his work. Accepting his own premises and 
proceeding from his own point of view, his argument is weighty 
enough; but there are evidences of either a wilful attempt to mis- 
represent the opinions of Heraclitus, or a disposition to allow the 
prejudices of his school against the Stoics, with whom he identifies 
Heraclitus, to obscure the real teaching of the Ephesian. On the 
supposition that the fire out of which the universe is evolved accord- 
ing to Heraclitus is the same as the fire which he pictures to his own 
consciousness, Lucretius presents his objections in this order: 


1. It is impossible to obtain such a variety of things from fire. 

2. Condensation and rarefaction are insufficient to account for 
this variety, because they effect no qualitative change. 

3. Heraclitus denies void in things, without which condensation 
and rarefaction are inconceivable. 

4. When he declares that changes occur by the extinction of the 
fire he-is at fault, for that would mean annihilation, and things 
would then need to be produced from nothing, which is contrary to 
the first principle of true philosophy. 

5. To assert that fire is the only real existence, all other things 
being only apparent is to deny the infallibility of the senses, a funda- 
mental doctrine of Epicureanism.*® 





1 Fr. 11, 12, in Fairbanks, First Philosophers of Greece, p. 26. 
?Masson, Atomic Theory of Lucretius, p. 27, 3. 
᾿ Ι, 645-764. 


HERACLITUS. : 73 


The question suggested by an examination of the argument thus 
outlined is: To what extent does Lucretius represent the actual posi- 
tion of Heraclitus? What, for example, is the precise significance of 
the fire which the latter employs to indicate primitive matter? That 
Heraclitus has adopted fire as the primordial sole element from 
which all things have been derived, is certified in the most unequivo- 
cal manner. 


ἐκ πυρὸς τὰ πάντα συνεστάναι, καὶ els τοῦτο ἀναλύεσθαι... πῦρ εἶναι στοιχεῖ- 
ον, καὶ πυρὸς ἀμοιβὴν τὰ πάντα ἀραιώσει καὶ πυκνώσει τὰ γινόμενα. .. καὶ ἕνα el- 
ναι κόσμον. γεννᾶσθαί τε αὐτὸν ἐκ πυρὸς, καὶ πάλιν ἐκπυροῦσθαι κατά τινας. .. 
πυκνούμενον γὰρ τὸ πῦρ ἐξυγραίνεσθαι, συνιστάμενόν τε γίνεσθαι ὕδωρ’ πηγνύμενον 
δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ, εἰς γῆν τρέπεσθαι" καὶ ταύτην ὁδὸν επὶ τὸ κάτω εἶναι. πάλιν τε αὐτὴν 
τὴν γῆν χεῖσθαι, ἐξ ἧς τὸ ὕδωρ γίνεσθαι" ἐκ δὲ τούτου τὰ λοιπὰ σχεδὸν πάντα, ἐπὶ 
τῆν ἀναθυμίασιν ἀνάγων τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάττης. αὕτη δὲ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄνω ὁδός." 

But was the fire of Heraclitus that of Lucretius? The poet would 
have us think so, and the words of Cicero already cited seem to 
claim as much. Lucretius apparently has before his mind constantly 
the visible flame, the process of combustion, and other phenomena 
which appeal to thesenses. But nostudent of the fragments of Her- 
aclitus can be persuaded that he was tied to any such narrow con- 
ceptions. Grote admits that the Lucretian interpretation is coun- 
tenanced by some striking passages from Heraclitus, but maintains 
that from the whole mass of his works, in as far as we possess them, 
‘it appears that his main doctrine was not physical but metaphys- 
ical or ontological; that the want of general adequate terms induced 
him to clothe it in a multitude of symbolical illustrations, among 
which fire was only one, though the most prominent and significant. ” ? 
The latter part of this statement would seem to be scarcely accurate, 
since Heraclitus evidently regarded fire, not simply as one of several 
- symbols which could serve as illustrations of his doctrine, but as the 
one inclusive symbol, which in a special sense answered the require- 
ments of ever-changing nature. With this modification Zeller would 
be in substantial harmony with Grote’s view. The former says in ef- 
fect, that with the doctrine that all things are in constant flux as the 





' Diogenes Laertius, 1X, 7, 8, 9. Ἡράκλειτος φησὶν ἅπαντα γίνεσθαι ποτε πῦρ. 
Aristotie, Phys. Il, 5, ζοξα, 3. Ritter et Preller, 29a. 
2Grote, Plato, I, 27. 


74 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


fundamental principle of his philosophy, fire seems to Heraclitus to 
be the living, moving element in nature. The foundation of this 
theory, lies in the fact that fire seems to the philosopher to be the sub- 
stance which least of all has a permanent consistency or allows it in 
another; and he consequently understands by his fire not merely 
flame, but warmth in general, for which reason he also designates it 
as vapor or breath—pvy4. His reason for adopting fire as the material 
of the universe was ‘‘in order to express the absolute life of nature, 
and to make the restless alternation of phenomena comprehensible. 
Fire is not to him an unvarying substance out of which things de- 
rived were compounded, but which in this union remains qualitat- 
-ively unchanged, like the elements of Empedocles or the primitive 
substances of Anaxagoras; ‘‘it is the essence which ceaselessly passes 
into all elements, the universal nourishing matter which, in its 
eternal circulation, permeates all parts of the cosmos, assumes in 
each a different constitution, produces individual existences, and 
again resolves itself; and by its absolute motion causes the restless 
beating of the pulse of nature.’ 

Heraclitus has left a statement which harmonizes with this phrase- 
ology, and serves to elucidate his meaning in the use of fire: 

πυρὸς ἀνταμείβεται πάντα καὶ πῦρ ἁπάντων, ὥσπερ χρυσοῦ χρήματα καὶ χρη- 
μάτων χυσός. ἢ 

Brandis, commenting upon this, as quoted by Munro,* says that 
fire ‘‘is that for which all things are exchanged as wares for gold; 
but it changes itself as little into the things, as gold changes into 
these wares.” But Zeller* puts a somewhat different construction on 
the passage when he says: ‘‘ Herein he gives us to understand that 
the derived arises out of the primitive matter, not merely by com- 
bination and separation, but by transformation, by qualitative 
change; for in the barter of wares for gold, the substance does ποῖ᾽ 
remain, but only the worth of it.” | 

Another pertinent inquiry in this connection is this: Does Lucre- 
tius correctly represent Heraclitusin attributing to him the hypothesis 





1 Zeller, Fre-Socratic Philosophy, 11, 23. 

2Fr., 22, in Fairbanks, First Phil. Greece, p. 30. 
3 JI, 85. 

4 Pre- Socratic Philosophy, Ul, 28. 


HERACLITUS. 75 


οὐ condensation and rarefaction to account for the derivation of 
things? There is undoubtedly on the surface of much that is cred- 
ited to Heraclitus an indication of this theory. ‘The passage already 
quoted from Diogenes Laertius’ certainly bears this construction. 
Other testimony is equally direct and definite. 


Ἡράκλειτος... ἀρχὴν τῶν ὅλων τὸ Tip. . τούτου δὲ κατασβεννυμένονυ κοσμο-- 
ποιεῖσθαι τὰ πάντα. πρῶτων μὲν γὰρ τὸ παχυμερέστατον αὐτοῦ εἰς αὑτὸ συστελλό- 
μενον γῆν γίνεσθαι, ἔπειτα ἀναχαλωμένην τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς φύσει ὕδωρ ἀπο- 
'τελεῖσθαι, ἀναθυμιώμενον δὲ ἀέρα γίνεσθαι. 

Ἵππασος καὶ Ἡράκλειτος ἕν καὶ οὗτοι καὶ κινούμενον καὶ πεπερασμένον, ἀλλὰ 
πῦρ ἐποίησαν τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἐκ πυρὸς ποιοῦσι τὰ ὄντα πυκνώσει καὶ μανώσει καὶ 
διαλύουσι πάλιν εἰς πῦρ ὡς ταύτης μιᾶς οὐσης φύσεως τῆς ὑποκειμένης" πυρὸς γὰρ 
ἀμοιβὴν εἶναί φησιν Ἡράκλειτος πάντα. 

But this interpretation of Heraclitus, which is made by later 
writers exclusively, is irreconcilable with the fundamental principle 
of his philosophy, which is that all things are in perpetual flux— 
there is nothing permanent. It is inevitable that when fire passes 
into moisture and thence into earth, condensation occurs, and when 
this process is reversed, rarefaction just as certainly takes place. But 
these are results, and not causes of a change of substance. The 
phraseology employed by Heraclitus is foreign to the notion of con- 
densation and rarefaction, and combination and separation of sub- 
stances. His terms are /ransmuiation, kindling and extinguishing, life 
and death. Moreover, the idea of one immutable primitive sub- 
stance is utterly incongruous with the underlying principle of his 
philosophy, ‘Though fire was in his view the essence from which all 
things were evolved, it was not so in the sense in which Thales or 
Anaximenes made water or rain the original element. The early 
physicists regarded their elements as abiding without change in the 
midst of the constant mutations of things derived. The fire of Her- 
aclitus, on the other hand, is that element which by its perpetual ἢ 
transmutation effects these changes. * 

But Lucretius contends that without void in matter, the existence 





'IX, 8, 9. 
* Plutarch, Plac., 1, 3, 25, in Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, 11. 28, 2. 
3 Simplicius, Phys., 6r, 23, 33D in Ritter et Preller, 29¢. 

*Zeller, Pre-Soc. Phil., U1, 28-30. 


76 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


of which Heraclitus denies, there could be no such processes as rare- 
faction and condensation; and hence, even if they were sufficient to 
account for the variety in nature produced from fire as the sole orig- 
inal element, on his opponent’s own theory, they are not to be con- 
sidered. 


Id quoque, st faciant admixium rebus inane, 
Denseri poterunt ignes rarique relingut. 

Sed quia multa sibi cernunt contraria nasct 
Et fugitant in rebus inane relinquere purum, 
Ardua dum metuunt, amittunt vera viat, 

Nec rursum cernunt exempto rebus inant 
Omnia denseri fierique ex omnibus unum 
Corpus, nil ab se quod possi mittere raplim; 
Aestifer ignis ut lumen tacit atque vaporem, 
Ut videas non e stipatis partibus esse." 


Again, bearing in mind the terminology of Heraclitus referred to 
above, which apparently involves the ideas of death and extinction, 
Lucretius fancies he has hit upon an argument calculated utterly to 
destroy his adversary, when he declares that the extinguishing of the 
primordial fire to produce the changes of nature would signify that 
things were constantly being produced out of nothing, which is con- 
trary to the first principle of rational philosophy. 


Quod si forte alia credunt ratione polesse 

lgnis tn coetu stingut mulareque corpus, 

Scilicet ex nulla facere id st parte reparcent, - . 
Occidet ad nilum nimirum funditus ardor 

Omnis et ὁ nilo fient quaecumque creantur.” 


But when Heraclitus conceives of his fire as extinguished, it is cer- 
tainly not in the sense in which Lucretius fancies he does, for he 
plainly declares that his fire is never destroyed. The lightning flash 
passes away, but the essential warmth is still in existence. The sun 
goes down and darkness follows, but Helios is not quenched. The 





11, 655-64. 
21 665-69. 


HERACLITUS. = 9 


fire of Heraclitus ‘‘is not like sunlight, connected with a particular 
and therefore changing phenomenon, but is the universal essence, 
which is contained in all things as their substance.’”* The remarkable 
approach which Heraclitus thus makes to the nebular hypothesis of 
modern science imparts to his doctrines an exceedingly vital interest. 


An examination of the Heraclitean doctrine of the senses, sug-— 
gested by the criticism of Lucretius, presents another difficulty of 
interpretation. Had Lucretius some better knowledge of the 
opinions of Heraclitus than we possess in order to enable him to 
make the assertions regarding his views contained in the following 
lines? is a problem propounded by Munro:? 


Dicere porro ignem res omnis esse neque ullam 

x Rem veram in numero rerum constare nist ignem, 
Quod fact hic idem, perdelirum esse videtur. 
Nam contra sensus ab sensibus ipse repugnat 
Et labefaciat eos unde omnia credita pendent, 
Unde hic cognitus est tpst quem nominal ignem; 
Credit enim sensus ignem cognoscere vere, 
Cetera non credit, quae nilo clara minus sunt.* 


There can be no doubt that Heraclitus did distrust the senses. 


κακοὶ μάρτυρες ἀνθρώποισι ὀφθαλμοὶ καὶ ὦτα, βαρβάρους ψυχὰς éx dvrwv.! 
τήν τε οἴησιν, ἱερὰν νόσον ἔλεγε" καὶ τὴν ὅρασιν, ψεύδεσθαι." 


According to his opinion ‘‘ what our senses perceive is merely the 
fleeting phenomenon, not the essence.”® 
matter. Other things which appeal to our senses actually conceal, 
instead of disclosing, the essential quality of matter. Separate 
phenomena at best can only afford us a meagre and fractional view 
of that universal nature which isin constant flux. The testimony of 
the senses is, therefore, never true, for the reason that it is always 


fragmentary and inexact. The unwisdom ofthe generality of mankind 


Fire alone reveals original 





1 Zeller Pre-Soc. Phil., U1, 26. 

2 I, 88. 

51, 690-97. 

* Heracl., Fr., 4, in Fairbanks, First Phil. Greece, p. 24. 
5 Diogenes Laertius, 1X, 7. 

ὃ Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, WU, 88. 


78 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


is consequently seen in the fact that the mass depend for knowl- 
edge upon the evidence of the senses, an opinion with which Lucretius 
is wholly at variance, being fully persuaded in his own mind of 
the infallability of the sense perceptions. 


Quod mihi cum vanum tum delirum esse videtur ; 
Quo referemus enim? guid nobis certius psis 
Sensibus esse potest, gui vera ac falsa notemus δ' 


After his treatment of Empedocles and his four elements, in 
which fire is included, Lucretius apparently swings back to Heracli- 
tus, though there is a difference among critics as to whether he 
actually refers to the Ephesian philosopher in the passage we are 
about to consider.” Munro thinks that Lucretius may be ‘‘ viewing 
Heraclitus through the glosses’ of the Stoics,” and may be ‘‘ thinking 
among other theories of his ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω; but, as he affirms, no 
scholar would attribute to him the interchange of the four elements. * 
Hallier, on the other hand, whose contribution to the literature on | 
Empedocles and Lucretius has already been noted, believes that this 
passage points directly to Heraclitus, and not to the Stoics at all, 
except (perhaps he would admit)in a remote and adapted sense. 
After quoting the citation on the doctrines of Heraclitus from Dzog- 
enes Laertius, 1X, 9, which we have given above (p. 73), and which 
he declares to be almost identical in language with Lucretius, 1, 
782-88, he says: Unde aliquantum discrepant quae de Stoicis refer! 221- 
ogenes Laertius, VII, 142,‘ which runs as follows: 

γίνεσθαι δὲ τὸν κόσμον, ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἣ οὐσία τραπῃῇ δι᾽ ἀέρος els ὑγρόν, εἶτα τὸ 
παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ; τὸ δὲ λεπτομερὲς ἐξαραιωθῇ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπὶ 
πλέον λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπογεννήσῃ᾽ εἶτα κατὰ μῖξιν ἐκ τούτων φυτά τε καὶ ζῴα καὶ τὰ 
ἄλλα γένη. 

The opposition of Lucretius to the doctrine of transmutation, con- 
tained in the passage under discussion, is that primordia cannot thus 
change, but must be distinct and unchangeable, otherwise they 
would be annihilated; for, according to his view, whenever a thing 
changes and deserts its own limitations, immediately the death of 





'T, 698-700. 
21, 782-802. 
δ Munro, 11, 95. 


4 Lucreti Carmina ὁ Fragmentis Empedoclis Adumbrata, p. 20. 


HERACLITUS. - 79 


that which was ensues. Hence, if the elements, which the philoso- 
phers under consideration have described, are not formed out of 
things themselves immutable, we should have things returning to 
nothing, and again defy the first principle of all true philosophy. 


Quin potius tali natura praedita quaedam 
Corpora constituas, ignem st forte crearint, 
Posse eadem demptis paucts paucisque tributs, 
Ordine mutato et motu, facere aerts avras, | 
Sic alias alis rebus mutarier omnis ?'— 


exclaims Lucretius, who in this as all other instances, argues from 
his own standpoint exclusively. 

It may serve to mitigate in our judgment the severity of Lucretius’ 

assault upon Heraclitus to remember that he is principally actuated 
by his hostility to the Stoics, who adopted very largely the physical 
‘theory of the origin of the universe taught by Heraclitus, as the Epi- 
cureans employed that of Leucippus and Democritus for their pur- 
pose. Munro feels that the use of plural subjects and verbs in the 
section under survey (I, 645-89), undoubtedly points to the Stoic 
school.’ 


2. THE SrToIcs. 


The antagonism of Lucretius toward the Stoic school was one of 
the inevitable consequences of his absolute confidence in ‘Epicurus. 
Trusting him with unquestioning devotion, he could not avoid being 
intolerant of that system of philosophy which, at the time he wrote, 
was the only successful rival of Epicureanism. Though Lucretius 
never mentions the Stoics or their chief teachers, Zeno, Chrysippus 
and Cleanthes by name, there are repeated allusions to them in his 
verses, which betray an intensity of feeling not always manifest in 
other polemical passages. Twice in Book I (641, 1068). he con- 
temptuously calls the Stoics s/o/id7, a word containing more bitterness 





ΕἼ, 798-802. 
2 Munro, II, p. 83. 


80 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


than he evinces in the case of any other school. This hostility of 
Lucretius to the philosophers of the ‘‘ porch,” one might almost 
call an inherited passion. Reference has already been made to the 
unfriendliness with which Epicurus spoke of competitors for philo- 
sophic honors.’ Diogenes Laertius endeavors to refute these reports 
of harshness on‘the part of Epicurus toward his rivals, insisting that 
they are calumnies, and citing evidences of his kindness and affability. 


μεμήνασι δ᾽ οὗτοι. To yap ἀνδρὶ μάρτυρες ἱκανοὶ τῆς ἀνυπερβλήτου πρὸς πάντας 
εὐγνωμοσύνης ἥ τε πατρὶς χαλκαῖς εἰκόσι τιμήσασα, οἵ τε φίλοι τοσοῦτοι τὸ πλῆ- 
θος ὡς μηδ᾽ ἂν πόλεσιν ὅλαις μετρεῖσθαι δύνασθαι, οἵ τε γνώριμοι πάντες ταῖς δογ- 
ματικαῖς αὐτου σειρῆσι προσκατασχεθέντες πλὴν Μητροδώρου τοῦ Σιτρατονικέως 
πρὸς Καρνεάδην ἀποχωρήσαντος, τάχα βαρυνθέντος ταῖς ἀνυπερβλῆτοις αὐτοῦ 
χρηστότησιν... ἥ τε πρὸς τοὺς γονέας εὐχαριστία, καὶ ἣ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς εὐ- 
ποιία, πρὸς τε τοὺς οἰκέτας ἡμερότης, .. καθόλου τε ἣ πρὸς πάντας αὐτοῦ φιλαν- 
θρωπία. τῆς μὲν γὰρ πρὸς θεοὺς ὁσιότητος καὶ πρὸς πατρίδα φιλίας ἄλεκτος ἡἣ διά- 
Bets. * 


But an attitude of friendliness toward disciples and admirers is 
certainly not inconsistent with injustice and hatred toward philo- 
sophic opponents. Moreover, the defence which Diogenes Laertius 
makes is not wholly disinterested, since if not a disciple himself, he 
was at least a warm friend of the Epicureans.* The spirit of hostil- 
ity which Epicurus exhibited toward the champions of other philo- 
sophic schemes he transmitted to his followers, whose most conspic- 
uous characteristic, as we have seen, was their servile devotion to 
their master’s instruction. It was natural that a contention which 
had ensued for two hundred years should suffer no diminution with 
the lapse of time. In agreement with this probability we find Zeno, 
the Sidonian, a cxoAdpxyns, who wrote in the time of Lucretius, m- 
dulging in positive scurrility when he mentions the older philoso- 
ophers as well as his contemporaries. Cicero* declares: Zeno guidem 
non eos solum, qut tum erant, Apollodorum, Silum, ceteros, figebat mat- 
edicts, sed Socraten ipsum, parentem philosophiae, Latino verbo utens 





1 Diogenes Laertius, X, 7, 8. 

2 10.5 Pay De- 

3 Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics (Eng. Tr.), p. 416, 1. 
* De Nat. Deor., 1, 93. 


THE STOICS. 81 


scurram Alticum futsse dicebat Chrysippum nemquam nist Chrysippam.* 
vocebat. Such contumelious treatment was sure to be resented. 
The Stoics of earlier days did not hesitate to heap the foulest abuse 
upon Epicurus’ in return for his strictures upon their philosophy ; 
and their successors were not slow to emulate them in this respect 
when they came to consider the later Epicureans. But the Stoic 
charges of gross immorality have never been proven against Epicurus 
and his immediate disciples. It is very natural that a company of 
persons who assert that pleasure is the highest good should be open 
to the suspicion of sensuality. And this likelihood was increased in 
the case of Epicurus bv the admission of women, some of whom were 
of easy virtue, to the garden where his philosophy was taught. Such 
conduct, however, was not extraordinary in the state of Greek soci- 
ety at that time. And in all justice it must be confessed that the 
idolatrous veneration of his adherents for Epicurus is difficult of ex- 
planation on the supposition that he was a man of impure character. 
Moreover, his letters here and there give evidence of a righteousness 
almost Puritanic in some particulars. That he subsisted on frugal 
fare, and refrained from excesses of every sort, is the testimony not 
only of his friends,* but also of those who ridiculed his abstemious- 
ness.* Great writers subsequent to Lucretius, such as Seneca, Ju- 
venal and JLucian, vindicate the name of Epicurus from the dishonor 





1 Or, Chesippum. 


*Avétipzos ὃ ὁ Στωικὸς δυσμενῶς ἔχων πρὸς αὐτὸν πικρότατα αὐτὸν διαβέβληκεν, 
ἐπιστολὰς φέρων πεντήκοντα ἀσελγεῖς ὡς ᾿Εἰπικούρου" καὶ ὁ τὰ εἰς Χρύσιππον ἀν- 
αφερόμενα ἐπιστόλια ὡς ᾿Εἰπικούρου συντάξας. ἀλλα καὶ οἱ περὶ Ποσειδώνιον τὸν 
Στωικὸν καὶ Νικόλαος καὶ Σωτίων - - καὶ Διονύσιος ὁ ᾿Αλικαρνασσεύς. - - καὶ 
Acovriw συνεῖναι τῇ ἑταίρᾳ" - - καὶ ἄλλαις δὲ πολλαῖς ἑταίραις γράφειν, καὶ μάλ- 
ισταὰ Λεοντίῳ ἧς καὶ Μητρόδωρον ἐρασθῆναι. - - ᾿Εἰπίκτητός τε κιναιδολόγον αὐὖ- 
τὸν καλεῖ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα λοιδορεῖ. καὶ μὴν καὶ Τιμοκράτης - - φησὶ δὶς αὐτὸν τῆς 
᾿ ἡμέρας ἐμεῖν ἀπὸ τρυφῆς. - - συνεῖναί τε αὐτῷ τε καὶ Μητροδώρῳ ἑταίρας καὶ ἄλ- 
λας, Μαμμάριον καὶ ᾿ἩἩδεῖαν καὶ ᾿Εἰρώτιον καὶ Nixifiov.—Diog. Laer., X, 3-7. 
Usener, Zpicurea, pp. 360-2. 

SAvoxAfjs δὲ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ τῆς ἐπιδρομῆς φησιν - εὐτελέστατα καὶ λιτότατα διαιτώ- 
μενοι" κοτύλῃ γοῦν, φησίν, οἰδινίου ἠρκοῦντο' τὸ δὲ πᾶν ὕδωρ ἦν αὐτοῖς ποτόν. 

πέμψον μοι τυροῦ φησὶ κυθριδίου, tv’ ὅταν βούλωμαι πολυτελεύσασθαι δύνωμαι. 
πο X, x, 11. Cf, 130 144, 146. 

*James Baldwin Brown, Stoics and Saints, p. 17 (Mac Millan & Co.). 


82 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


which is attached to it through the perversion of his doctrines. ? 
At the same time it must be confessed that there is nothing in his 
principles or system of philosophy to restrain those who espouse his 
teaching from a life of self-indulgence. That a convivialist will 
adopt such a scheme of doctrines to justify lascivious and effeminate 
conduct, is not only a natural inference, but a fact of history. 
Usener, speaking of the opponents of the Epicureans, refers to the 
never-ending hostility of the Stoics in the following language: 


Omnium longe acerbissimi et gravissimi Stoict. Quorum sectae cum a 
principio Epicurit philosophia omnis repugnaret, eham magis contraria 
facta est, postgquam Persaeus unam Stoicorum doctrinam servando regno 
et civitati utilem esse Antigono regi persuasit et ad regnt commoda philos- 
ophiam revocarvtt. Produit Cleanthes adversarius ut Arisiarchus Samius 
exper/us est, acer vehemensque, qui non solum atomos inpugnarel sed ett- 
am imaginem vividam exornando Virtulum ancillantium miserationem, 
odium Voluplahs dominants commoveret. lam magis magisque coeptum 
est odits trisque dimicart. Ad infamandum Epicurum fuere qui epistulas 
inpudicas tamquam ab illo scriplas publicarent. Severissima plebiscita in 
Epicureos a Messenus Lycthis Phalannaets facta multitudinis superstih- 
osae odio Stoicorum calumniis excttato.” 


The Epicureans on their part were, of course, no less bitter in their 
criticisms upon the followers of Zeno. Philodemus, a close con- 
temporary of Lucretius, brings serious charges of impiety against the 
Stoics. From the Volumina Herculanensia Usener makes this 


extract: 


πάντες οὖν οἱ ἀπὸ Z(h)vwvos εἰ καὶ ἀπέλί(ει)πον τὸ δαιμόνιον, Som(e)p of μὲν 
οὐκ ἀπίέ)λειπον, (ot) δ᾽ ἐν τισὶν οὐκ ἀπέ(λειγ)πον, ἕνα (θε)ὸν λέγου(σι)ν εἶναι, γίν- 
εσθαι (δὲ) καὶ τὸ πᾶν σὺν τῆι ψυχῇ, πλανῶσιν δ᾽ (ὡς) πολλοὺς ἀπολί(ε)ίπονίτες). 
ὥστ᾽ (οὐ κα)τὰ ν(ό)μίο)ν θ(εοὺς ἐννο)εῖν ἀ(λλ᾽ ἀ)ναιρεῖν ἐπιδεικ(ν) ύσθωσαν τοῖς πολ- 
λοῖς, ἕνα μόνον ἅπαντα λέγοντες, οὐ πολλούς, οὐδὲ πάντας ὅσους ἣ κοινὴ (φ)ήμη 
παραϑέδωκεν, ἡμῶν οὐ μόνον ὅσους φασὶν οἱ Πανέλληνες ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείονας εἶναι 


λεγόντων." 





1Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 299. Seneca, Vit. Be., 13,1. Ep. 
33, 2. Cf, Cic. Fin., Il, 25, 81. Zeller, Stotcs, Epicureans and Sceptics, Ὁ. 
487, 3. 

2 Epicurea, Prefatio, LXXI, LXXV/I, 

ὃ περὶ ἐυσεβείας, in Epicurea, Praefatio, Δ. Χ Χ 711. 


~ 


THE STOICS. 83 


Cicero refers to the master of the Epicurean school as Zpicurum, 
quem hebetem et rudem dicere solent Storcz.' 

Knowing the animosity of some of the belligerents in the contests 
of the Stoics and the Epicureans, we easily conjecture the manner in 
which those treated one another, of whom we have no accurate 
record. Formerly, we are told,’ there were extant many volumes of 
the controversial writings of Chrysippus bearing upon Epicurus, but 
we have now only an imperfect, though valuable, index of the pro- 
ductions of the famous Stoic, those treating of Epicurean tenets be- 
ing as follows: 

περὶ τοῦ καλοῦ Kal τῆς ἡδονῆς, ἀποδείξεις πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὴν ἡδονὴν τέλος, ἀ- 
ποδείξεις πρὸς τὸ μὴ εἶναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀγαθόν. 

Thé- hostility of Lucretius toward Stoicism, however, cannot be 
adequately accounted for on the mere ground of the traditional en- 
mity existing between the two schools. Not only do irreconcilable 
differences occur immediately the systems are brought to the solution 
of the same fundamental problems, but there are remarkable points 
of agreement between them, which alone would be sufficient to beget 
an ungenerous rivalry. Epicureans and Stoics alike were in quest of 
the same deszderatum—rest of soul (ἀταραξία. They both employed 
in this pursuit a philosophy thoroughly materialistic, and assigned to 
practical questions a supremacy over matters of pure speculation. 
The perceptions of the senses were by both regarded as the only 
standard by which truth could be measured. They were both agreed 
that accurate knowledge is attainable, otherwise there could be no 
positive action. Even in the consideration of the summum bonum, 
where it would be natural to expect the widest breach, it has been 
shown that the grounds of contentment and spiritual repose in both 
were exceedingly similar.‘ It has been truthfully asserted ‘‘that the 





! De Divinatione, 11, 50, 103. 

2Usener, Epicurea Praefatio, LXXT//. 

3 Diogenes Laertius, VU, 202. 

* «According to Zeno virtue, according to Epicurus pleasure, is the highest and 
only good ; but the former in making virtue consist essentially in withdrawal from 
the senses or insensibility ; the latter in seeking pleasure in repose of mind or in- 
perturbability, are expressing the same belief. Man can only find unconditional 
and enduring satisfaction, when by means of knowledge he attains to a condition 


84 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


tones of Lucretius might in many places be mistaken for those of 
a Stoic, rather than an Epicurean. In their resistance to the com- 
mon forms of evil these systems were at one. Perhaps, too, in the 
positive good at which he aimed, the spirit of Lucretius was more 
that of a Stoic than he imagined.”? Furthermore, both Epicureans 
and Stoics are devoid of any permanent interest in social life, and 
both would divorce the wise man from public and political activity. 
The very likeness” of these several approaches to the main question 
at issue was calculated to engender enmity and rancour. In addi- 
tion to which there was an irrepressible conflict between the two 
schools in the detailed development of their materialistic views. 
Speaking broadly, the occasions of this contention may be best de- 
scribed in the language of another: ‘‘These divergencies appear 
particularly on the subject of nature, the Stoic regarding nature as a 
system of design, the Epicureans explaining it as a mechanical prod- 
uct. Whilst the Stoics adhered to fatalism, and saw God every- 
where, the Epicureans held the theory of atoms and the theory of 
necessity. Whilst the Stoics were speculatively orthodox, the Epi- 
cureans were irreligious free-thinkers.”"* Hence it was inevitable that 
the author of De Rerum Natura should give large place to contro- - 
versy with his master’s chief antagonists. 

Particular instances of conflict between Lucretius and the Stoic 
school appear early in the poem. The passage in which properties 
and accidents (even/a et conjuncia) are discussed * is directly opposed 
to the teaching of the rival philosophy which regards all states, 
qualities, virtues, emotions, etc., as corporeal. 





of mind at rest with itself, and also to an independence of external attractions and 
misfortunes. . . . Neither the Stoic can separate happiness from virtue, nor the 
Epicurean separate virtue from happiness.’’—Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Scep- 
tics, pp. 505, 6. 

1Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 363. 

2 «<The united weight of all these points of resemblance is sufficient to warrant 
the assertion that, notwithstanding their difference, the Stoics and Epicureans 
stand on the same footing, and that the sharpness of contrast between them is ow- 
ing to their laying hold of opposite sides of one and the same principle.” Zeller, 
Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 506. 

3 /b., p. 505. 

41, 430-82. 


THE STOICS. 85 


The Stoics and Epicureans were agreed that reality could only be 
ascribed to material objects.» They argued in almost identical terms 
that whatever affects anything, or is in turn affected by anything, is 
bodily substance. Cicero? says: Discrepabat etiam ab wisdem (supert- 
ortbus Zeno), quod nullo modo arbitrabatur quidguam effict posse ab ea 
(natura), quae expers esset corporis—nec vero aut quod efficeret aliquid 
aut quod efficeretur posse esse non corpus. Plutarch says: ὄντα γὰρ μόνα 
τὰ σώματα καλοῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ ὄντος τὸ ποιεῖν τε Kal πάσχειν." 

With this declaration Epicurus concurs: 


καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι νοῆσαι τὸ ἀσώμτον πλὴν τοῦ κενοῦ. τὸ δὲ κενὸν οὔτε 
ποιῆσαι οὐτε παθεῖν δύναται, ἀλλὰ κίνησιν μόνον δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς σώμασι παρέχε- 
εται. 


Lucretius says: 


Praeterea per se quodcumque erit, aut faciet quid 
Aul alis fungi debebit agentibus ipsum 

Aut erit, ut possunt in eo res esse gerique. 

At facere et fungi sine corpore nulla potest res 
Nec praebere locum porro nisi inane vacansque. 
Ergo praeter inane et corpora tertia per se 

Nulla potest rerum in numero natura relingut, 
Nec quae sub sensus cadat ullo tempore nostros 
Nec ratone animi quam quisquam possit apisci.* 


The theory that existence belongs to that alone which is material 
necessitates the doctrine of the corporeality of the soul; nor did the 
Stoics and Epicureans alike shrink from declaring their allegiance to 
this tenet. . Cleanthes and Chrysippus assert it without hesitation. 


οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι " 
συμπάσχει δὲ ἣ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι νοσοῦντι καὶ τεμνομένῳ καὶ τὸ σῶμα τῇ Ψυχῇ 
αἰσχυνομένης γοῦν ἐρυθρὸν γίνεται καὶ φοβουμένης ὠχρόν. σῶμα ἄρα ἡἣ ψυχή. ὃ 


Other Stoic authorities are equally pronounced in this view. 





1 Acad., 1, 39. 

2 Comm. Notit. 30, 2 in Ritter et Preller 396c. 
3 Diogenes Laertius, X. 67. 

41, 440-8. 

ὃ Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, 210, 1. 


86 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


The Epicurean position on this question coincides with that of the 
Stoics, as the accompanying quotations sufficiently prove. 


οἱ λέγοντες ἀσώματον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν pardlovorv. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἂν ἐδύνατο ποιεῖν 

οὔτε πάσχειν, εἰ ἦν τοιαύτη νῦν δ᾽ ἐναγῶς ἀμφότερα ταῦτα συμβαίνει περὶ τὴν 
ψυχὴν τὰ συμπτώματα." 

Haec eadem ratio naluram animt atque animat 

Corpoream docet esse, ubt enim propellere membra, 

Corripere ex somno corpus mutareque vultum 

Alque hominem totum regere ac versare videtur, 

Quorum nil fiert sine taclu posse videmus 

Nec tactum porro sine corpore, nonne fatendumst 

Corporea natura animum constare animamque ἢ 


But on the same principles the Stoics proceeded to still greater 
lengths. They asserted that all properties, qualities and forms were 
material. Hence, virtues and vices were accounted by them as cor- 
poreal, and even emotions, impulses, judgments and notions, which 
are due to material causes. 

ἄτοπον γὰρ εὖ μάλα τὰς ἀρετὰς kal τὰς κακίας, πρὸς δὲ ταύταις τὰς τέχνας καὶ 
τὰς μνήμας πάσας, ἔτι δὲ φαντασίας καὶ πάθη καὶ ὁρμὰς καὶ συγκαταθέσεις σώμα- 
Ta ποιουμένους ἐν μηδενὶ φάναι κεῖσθαι... . οἱ δ᾽ οὐ μόνον τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰς κακ- 
las {wa εἶναι λέγουσιν, οὐδὲ τὰ πάθη μόνον, ὀργὰς καὶ φθόνους καὶ λύπας καὶ ἐπι- 
χαιρεκακίας, οὐδὲ καταλήψεις καὶ φαντασίας καὶ ἀγνοίας, οὐδέ τὰς τέχνας twa, 
τὴν σκυτοτομικήν τὴν χαλκοτυπικήν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας σώμ- 
ara καὶ {wa ποιουσι, τόν περίπατον Lwov, τὴν ὄρχησιν, τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, τὴν πρ- 
οσαγόρευσιν, τὴν λοιδορίαν .* 

The Good was also regarded by the Stoics asin the same category, 
Seneca says: Quaeris, bonum an corpus sit. Bonum facil, prodest enim; 
quod facit corpus est. » Bonum agital animum et quodam modo Sormat et 
continet, quae propria sunt corporis. Quae corporis bona sunt, corpora 
sunt ergo, ef quae animt sunt; nam et hic corpus est... .. Non puto 16 
dubttaturum an adfectus corpora sint,—lanquam tra, amor, trishtia, St 
dubitas, vide an voltum nobis mutent, an frontem adstringant, an+faciem 
diffundant, an ruborem evocent, an fugent sanguinem. Quid ergo, lam 
manifestas ποίας corport credits imprimt nist a corporeP St adfectus 





1 Diogenes Laertius, X, 67. 
2 III, 161-6. 
" Plutarch, Com. Not., 45, 2, in Ritter et Preller, 396c. 


THE STOICS. 87 


corpora sunt, et morbi animorum, et avaritia, crudelitas, indurata vitia et 
in statum inemendabilem adducta,; ergo et malia et species evus omnes, . 
malignitas, invidia, superbia. Ergo et bona, primum quia contraria istis 
sunt, deinde quia eadem tibi indicia praestabunt.' 


Truth is likewise placed in the same classification, the significance 
of truth being the knowledge which the soul possesses in itself. 


τὴν δὲ ἀλήθειαν οἴονταί τινες, καὶ μάλιστα of ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς, διαφέρειν τἀληθοῦς 
κατὰ τρεῖς τρόπους, οὐσίᾳ μὲν παρόσον ἣ μὲν ἀλήθεια σῶμά ἐστι, τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἀ- 
'σώματον ὑπῆρχεν. καί εἰκότως φασίν’ τουτὶ μὲν γὰρ ἀξίωμά ἐστι, τὸ δέ ἀξίωμα 
λεκτόν, τὸ δὲ λεκτὸν ἀσώματον. ἀνάπαλιν δὲ ἣ ἀλήθεια σῶμά ἐστι παρόσον ἐπιστή- 
μη πάντων ἀληθῶν ἀποφαντικὴ δοκεῖ τυγχάνειν, πᾶσα δὲ ἐπιστήμη πῶς ἔχον ἐστὶν 
- ἡγεμονικόν’ τὸ δὲ ἡγεμονικὸν σῶμα κατὰ τούτους ὑπῆρχεν. ” 


Against these and other similar claims of the Stoics, Lucretius op- 
poses his doctrine that there are but two conceivable things in the 
universe, atoms and the void, ma/eries ef inane, ἄτομα καὶ κενόν. All 
other things are not distinct entities, but properties and accidents of 
things, having no material existence apart from the bodies with 
which they are identified. 


Nam quaecumque cluent, aut his coniuncta duabus 
Rebus ea invenies aut horum eventa videbss. 
Contunctum est id quod nusquam sine permitialt 
Discidio potis est setungt seque gregari, 

Pondus uti saxtst, calor tgnis, liquor aquat. 
Tacitus corporibus cunchs intactus inant 

Servitium contra paupertas divihaegue, 

Libertas bellum concordia, cetera quorum 
Adventu manel incolumis natura abituque, 

Haec soliti sumus, ut par est, eventa vocare.* 


Starting with the principle that existence alone belongs to that 
which is material, the Stoics had great difficulty in assigning time 
and space to their proper category. While they could not describe 
these as corporeal, they did speak of day and night, months and 
years and seasons, as bodies, though it is evident that those who did 





1 Epistolae, 106, 3, in Ritter et Preller, 396C. 
2 Sext. Math., Vil, 38, in Ritter et Preller, 3962. 


5 I, 449-59. 


88 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


so virtually meant that these divlsions of time answered to certain 
material states; the heat of the sun, for example, being responsible 
for summer, and the other seasons being regulated duly by the ap- 
proach and retirement of this planet. 


τῶν δὲ ἐν ἀέρι γινομένων, χειμῶνα μὲν εἶναι φασὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ γῆς ἀέρα κατεψυγμένον 
διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου πρόσω ἄφοδον" ἔαρ δὲ, τὴν εὐκρασίαν τοῦ ἀέρος, κατά τὴν πρὸς 
ἡμᾶς πορείαν. ! : 

ἔτι δέ καὶ τὸν χρόνον ἀσώματον, διάστημα ὄντα τῆς τοῦ κόσμον κινήσεως. 


But, while they admitted the incorporeality of time, they insisted 
on calling it a thing to be regarded by itself like void, though how 
they reconciled this obvious inconsistency is not recorded. The 
Epicurean doctrine with reference to time is that it is a particular 
property of activity and passivity, movement and repose. 


οὔτε GAAS τι κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατηγορητέον ὡς τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ἔχον To ἰδιώματι 
τούτῳ (καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο ποιοῦσι τινές), ἀλλὰ μόνον ᾧ συμπλέκομεν τὸ ἴδιον τοῦτο καὶ 
παραμετροῦμεν, μάλιστα ἐπιλογιστέον. καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀποδείξεως προσδεῖται 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιλογισμοῦ, ὅτι ταῖς ἡμέραις καὶ ταῖς νυξὶ συμπλέκομεν καὶ τοῖς τούτων μέρ- 
39σιν, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τοῖς πάθεσι καὶ ταῖς ἀπαθείαις, καὶ κινήσεσι καὶ στάσεσιν, 
ἴδιόν τι σύμπτωμα περὶ ταῦτα πάντα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐννοοῦντες, καθ᾽ ὃ χρόνον ὄνο- 


μάζομεν. ὃ ἃ 
This more consistent view is well expressed by Lucretius: 


Tempus item per se non est, sed rebus ab upsis 
Consequiiur. sensus, transactum quid sit aevo, 
Tum quae res instet, quid porro deinde sequatur. 
Nec per se quemquam tempus sentire fatendumst 
Semotum ab rerum motu placidaque quiete. 


Perspicere ut possts res gestas funditus omnis 
Non ita uti corpus per se constare neque esse, 

Nec ratione cluere eadem qua constet inane, 

Sed magis ut merito possts eventa vocare 

Corports atque loct, res in quo quaeque gerantur,* 








1 Diogenes Laertius, VII, 151. 

2 Jb., 141, Cf., Sext. Math., X, 218, in Ritter et Preller, 3994. 
3 Diogenes Laertius, X, 72, 73. 

41, 459-63 ; 478-82. 


THE STOICS. 89 


The point of conflict between the two schools in this matter is 
this,—the Stoics strove very-hard to assign corporeality to what the 
Epicureans described not as being itself, but as modes of being. 

In our discussion of Heraclitus we have already adverted to the 
physical basis with which this philosopher provides the Stoic school 
by his doctrine of primordial fire. We have also noted the dif- 
ference of opinion held by critics regarding the real object of Lucre- 
tius’ attack in the following lines:' 


Quin etiam repetunt a caelo atque ignibus etus, 
Et primum faciunt ignem se vertere in auras 
Aerts, hinc imbrem gigni, terramque creari 
Ex imbri, retroque a terra cuncta revert, 

fs Umorem primum, post aera, deinde calorem, 
Nec cessare haec inter se mutare, meare 
A caelo ad terram, de terra ad sidexa mundi. 
Cuod facere haud ullo debent primordia pacto. 
Immutabile enim quiddam superare necessest, 
Ne res ad nilum redigantur funditus omnes: 
Nam quodcumque suis mutatum finibus exit, 
Continuo hoc mors est tllius quod fuit ante. 
Quapropler quonizm quae paulo diximus ante 
ln commutatum veniunt, constare necessest 
Ex alis ea, quae nequeant converter usquam, 
Ne tibi res redeant ad nilum_ funditus omnes. 
Quin potius tali natura praedita gquaedam 
Corpora constituas, ignem st forte crearint 
Posse eadem, demplis paucis paucisque tributts, 
Ordine mutato et motu, facere aerts auras, 
Sic alias aliis rebus mutarier omnis 25 


Whatever we may determine to have been the actual occasion of 
this passage, it certainly does not misrepresent the position of the 
Stoics, if aimed at them. For, observing that warmth supplies 
nourishment, motion and life to matter, and that heat is existent in 
all things, they ascribed the origin and preservation of the world to 





Ip. 78. 
31, 782-802. 


go CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


fire. Since it is a law of nature that primary being shall transmute 
itself into specific things, fire. passes into air, water, earth; and 
through the distribution and combination of these elements the 
world is produced. After describing what, in the Stoic terminology, 
an element (στοιχεῖον) signifies, and explaining that Zeno and his fol- 
lowers regarded fire, air, water, earth, as equally essential matter, 
without any distinctive quality, Diogenes Laertius continues: 


ἀνωτάτω μὲν οὖν εἶναι τὸ πῦρ, ὃ δὴ αἰθέρα καλεῖσθαι, ἐν ᾧ πρώτην τὴν τῶν ἀπλα- 
νῶν σφαίραν γεννᾶσϑαι, εἶτα τὴν τῶν πλανωμένων" μεθ᾽ ae τὸν ἀέρα" εἶτα τὸ δι" 
ὑποστάθμην δὲ πάντων τὴν γῆν, μέσην ἁπάντων οὖσαν." 


He also asserts this to be their view of nature: 

δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτοῖς τὴν μὲν φύσιν εἶναι πῦρ τεχνικόν, 650 βαθίζον εἰς γένεσιν, ὅπερ 
ἐστὶ πνεῦμα πυροειδές καὶ Tex voerdés. ” 

Again on the interchange of the elements, he records the Stoic 
doctrine as follows: 

γίνεσθαι δέ τὸν κόσμον, ὅταν ἐκ πυρὸς ἣ οὐσία τραπῇ δι᾿ ἀέρος els ὑγρόν, εἶτα 
τὸ παχυμερὲς αὐτοῦ συστὰν ἀποτελεσθῇ γῆ, τὸ δὲ λεπτομερὲς ἐξαραιωθῇ καὶ τοῦτ᾽ 
ἐπὶ πλέον λεπτυνθὲν πῦρ ἀπογεννήσῃ᾽ εἶτα κατὰ μῖξιν ἐκ τούων φυτά τε kal Loa καὶ 
τὰ ἄλλα γένη. ὃ 

In a similar strain is the declaration of Plutarch concerning the 
teaching of Chrysippus: 

ἣ δὲ πυρὸς μεταβολή ἐστι τοιαύτη" δι᾿ ἀέρος els ὕδωρ τρέπεται κἀκ τούτου γῆς b- 
φισταμένης ἀὴρ ἀναθυμιᾶται' λεπτυνομένου δὲ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ αἰθὴρ περιχεῖται κύκλῳ, 
οἱ δ᾽ ἀστέρες ἐκ θαλάσσης μετὰ τοῦ ἡλίου ἀνάπτονται. “ 

The account of the Stoic doctrines contained in Cicero’s De Natura 
Deorum coincides with the testimony herewith presented: 


Sic enim res habet, ut omnia, quae alantur et quae crescant, contineant 
in se vim caloris, sine qua neque ali possent nec crescere. Nam omne, 
guod est calidum et igneum, ctelur et agitur motu suo.° 

Quod quidem Cleanthes his etiam arguments docet, quanta vis instt 





IVI, 137. 

2 Jb., 156. 

90, REQ 

4 Chrysipp. Ap. Plut. Stoic, Rep. 41, 3, p. 1053, in Ritter et Preller, 405¢. 
δ Ὁ 33. 


THE STOICS. ΟΙ 


caloris in omni corpore: negat enim esse ullum cibum fam gravem, quin 
ts nocle et die concoguaiur; cuius etiam in reliquis nest calor 115, quas 
nalura respuertt. . . . Omne igitur, quod vivil, sive animal sive 
terra editum, wd vivit propter inclusum in eo colorem. Ex quo iniellegi 
debet eam caloris naturam vim habere in se vitalem per omnem mundum 
pertinentem.* 

Et cum quattuor genera sint corporum, vicissitudine eorum mundi con- 
tinuata natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua orilur aer, ex aere 
aether, deinde retrorsum vicissim ex aethere aer, inde aqua, ex aqua terra 
infima. Sic naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant sursus deorsus, ultro 
cutro commeantibus mundi partium contunctio continetur.* 


The resemblance between the opinions of Heraclitus already noted 
and the views of the Stoics herein expressed is so close as to imply 
that whatever Lucretius urges against the doctrine of elemental fire of 
the one he intends to be valid against the similar doctrine of the 
other. Both were doubtless in mind as he wrote the passage under 
consideration. Moreover, whatever he directs against the four ele- 
ments of Empedocles has a purposed bearing on the physical theories 
of the Stoics as well. 

Lucretius takes issue with the Stoics on the structure and course 
of the universe no less than on its constituent elements. Having. 
controverted the doctrine of primordial fire, he proceeds to discuss 
the method by which the universal order came into existence, and 
finds himself again in conflict with the hereditary foe. Accident, 
and not design, is responsible for the production of the world. The 
eternal whirl of the atoms, with their perpetual collisions and attempts 
at combination, at length succeeded in begetting the present constitu- 
‘tion of things. This proposition Lucretius announces repeatedly in 
the progress of his poem, but never more elaborately than in the fol- 
lowing lines : 


Nam certe neque consilio primordia rerum 
Ordine se suo quaeque sagaci mente locarunt 
Nec qguos quaeque darent motus pepigere profecto, 
Sed quia multa modis multts primordia rerum 





1 Cicero, De Natura Deortim, 11, 9, 24. 
2 7b., ΤΙ, 33, 84. 


92 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Ex infinito 1am tempore percita plagis 
Ponderibusque suis consuerunt concita ferrt 
Omnimodisque cotre alque omnia perlemplare, 
Quae cumque inter se possent congressa creare, 
Propterea fit uli magnum volgata per aevom 
Omne genus coelus et motus experiundo 
Tandem conveniant ea quae convecta repente 
Magnarum rerum fiunt exordia semper, 
Terrat marts et caeli generisque animantum.' 

7 


Such a process of world-formation necessarily involves infinity of 
matter and of space. Lucretius introduces his argument for this 
doctrine by a declaration that the universe is infinite, which he illus- 
trates and enforces at some length. 


Omne quod est igitur nulla regione viarum 
Finitumst; namque extremum debebat habere, etc.* 


In this he follows Epicurus with remarkable fidelity, both in ideas 
and phraseology. 


τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι. τὸ γὰρ πεπερασμένον ἄκρον ἔχει" τὸ δὲ ἄκρον παρ᾽ ἕτερόν 
τι θεωρεῖται. ὥστε οὐκ ἔχον ἄκρον πέρας οὐκ ἔχει" πέρας δὲ οὐκ ἔχον ἄπειρον ἂν 
εἴη καὶ οὐ πεπρασμένον." 

Now, space and matter, being co-extensive with the universe, are 
also infinite. If space were finite, all matter would sink by grav- 
ity to the bottom, whereas we know it is in constant motion. 


Praeterea spatium summai tottus omne 
Undique si inclusum certis consisteret orts 
Finitumque foret, tam copia materiat 
Undique ponderibus solidis confluxet ad mum, 
Nec res ulla geri sub caeli legmine posset, 
Nec foret omnino caelum neque lumina solis; 
Quippe ubi materies omnis cumulata taceret 
Ex infinito 1am tempore subsidendo. 





1V, 419-31. Cf. I, 1021-30; II, 1053-63 ; V, 187-94. 
21, 958-87. ; 
8 Diogenes Laertius, X, 41. 


THE STOICS, 93 


Af nunc, nimirum, requies data principiorum 
Corporibus nullast, quia nil est funditus imum, 
Quo quast confluere et sedes ubi ponere possint, 
Semper tn adsiduo motu res quaeque geruntur 
Partibus e cunctis, infernaque suppeditantur 
Ex infinito cita corpora materiat.* 


But matter must as surely be infinite as space, for the following 
reasons: It is a provision of nature that Void and Body should 
bound each other, and these alternations continue to infinity. If 
space alone were infinite sea, earth, heavens and all the objects of 
sense would dissolve into ruin. Indeed the atoms would never have 
combined to form things in beings; nor would the inevitable loss in 
nature be repaired if there were not an infinite supply of matter. 
The intricate clashings of the atoms would possibly maintain the 
unity of the world temporarily, but ultimately disintegration would 
occur. For the atomic collisions themselves would cease in time 
without an infinity of matter.’ 

This is the position touching infinity of space and matter which is 
taken by Epicurus, who says: : 

καὶ μὴν kal τῷ πλήθει τῶν σωμάτων ἄπειρόν ἐστι τὸ πᾶν Kal τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ κεν- 
od. εἴ τε γὰρ ἦν τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον, τὰ δὲ σώματα ὡρισμένα, οὐδαμοῦ ἂν ἔμενε τὰ 
᾿ σώματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐφέρετο κατὰ τὸ ἄπειρον κενὸν διεσπαρμένα, οὐκ ἔχοντα τὰ ὑπερείδον- 

τα καὶ στέλλοντα κατὰ τὰς ἀνακοπάς. εἴ τε τὸ κενὸν ἦν ὡρισμένον, οὐκ ἂν εἶχε τὰ 
ἄπειρα σώματα ὅπου ἐνέστη." 

But the Stoic doctrine of the universe is at variance with this. 
According to Zeno and his followers the earth is a globe resting in 
the centre of a system known as the world. Immediately above its 
surface is water, and beyond the water is air. Around these revolves 
the ether in a circle, composed of several strata, in which are set sun, 
moon and other heavenly bodies. Beyond this κόσμος is empty space 
extending to infinity, though the existence of any vacuum within 
the world is denied.* This is the Stoic universe. -In such a scheme 
matter could not be unlimited. The Epicurean conception of the 





ΕἼ, 988-1001. 

2T, 1008-51. 

3 Diogenes Laertius, X, 41, 42. 

*Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 202, 3. 


94 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


universe corresponds with that of the Stoics to the extent of regard- 
ing the earth as placed in the center of a system enclosed by a circuit 
of ether studded with celestial spheres. But Epicurus and Lucretius 
hold this to be but one of an infinite number of worlds, while the 
Stoics content themselves with a single system and a boundless ex- 
panse of space beyond. Epicureanism, therefore, demands an infin- 
ite supply of matter for an infinite quantity of worlds, but Stoicism 
derides the idea of unlimited body, and declares that the very nature 
of the corporeal renders infinity of matter impossible. The opinions 
of the Stoic philosophers on this subject are stated by Diogenes 
Laertius in the following terms: 

ἕνα τὸν κόσμον εἶναι Kal τοῦτον πεπερασμένον, σχῆμα ἔχοντα σφαιροειδές. . ἔξ- 
ὠθεν δ᾽ αὐτοῦ περικεχὺμένον εἶναι τὸ κενὸν ἄπειρον, ὅπερ ἀσώματον elvar. . . ἐν δὲ 
τῷ κόσμῳ μηδὲν εἶναι κενόν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡνῶσθαι αὐτόν." 

τὸ δὲ πᾶν λέγεται (ὥς φησιν ᾿Απολλόδωρος) ὅ δ᾽ τε κόσμος, καὶ καθ᾽ ἕτερον τρόπον 
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ ἔξωθεν κενοῦ, σύστημα. ὁ μὲν οὖν κόσμος πεπερασμένος 
ἐστί’ τὸ δὲ κενὸν, ἄπειρον. 

σῶμα δέ ἐστι κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἣ δ᾽ οὐσία καὶ πεπερασμένη." 

But when worlds have once been formed from this infinite supply 
of matter extending through the universe, how are they held 
together? This is the question which forces Lucretius into direct 
conflict with the Stoics, and incidently with the Péripatetics and 
some other philosophers. The theory of centripetal force as a solu- 
tion of the problem is scorned by the Epicurean poet. 


Lilud in his rebus longe fuge cedere, Memmi, 

In medium summae quod dicunt omnia nit, 

Ajque ideo mundi naturam stare sine ullis 

Lctibus externis neque quoquam posse resolor 
Summa aique ima, quod in medium sint omnia nixa; 
Ipsum st quicquam posse in se sistere credts, 

Et quae pondera sunt sub terris omnia sursum 
Nitier in lerraque retro requiescere posta.* 


Balbus, who gives an exposition of the Stoic doctrines in Cicero’s 





EVIL. 140. 
4/5, 142> 
3 7b., 150. 


*], 1052-9. 


THE STOICS. 95 


De Natura Deorum, elaborates the exact theory which Lucretius 
thus condemns. ; 


Omnes enim parles eius undigque medium locum capessentes_nituntur 
aequaliter. Maxime autem corpora inter se tuncia permanent, cum 
quast quodam vinculo circumdato colliganiur; quod factt ea natura, quae 
per omnem mundum omnia mente et ratione conficiens funditur et ad 
medium rapit et convertit extrema. . . . ademque ratone mare, 
cum supra terram sit, medium tamen terrae locum expetens conglobatur 
undique aequabiliter neque redundat umquam neque effunditur.* 


Stobaeus attributes this theory to Zeno. 


πάντα τὰ μέρη TOD κόσμου ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον τοῦ κόσμου THY φορὰν ἔχειν, μάλισα δὲ 
τὰ βάρος ἔχοντα. ; 

To Lucretius the conception is absurd, and the existence of the 
antipodes is ridiculed as the dream of fools. 


Ut per aquas quae nunc rerum simulacra videmus, 
Adsimilt ratione animalia suppa vagart 
Contendunt, neque posse e terris in loca caelt 
Reccidere infertora magis quam corpora nostra 
Sponte sua possint in caeli templa volare 

Lili cum videant solem, nos sidera noctis 

Cernere, et alternis nobiscum tempora caelt 
Dividere et noctes parilis agitare diebus, 

Sed vanus stolidis haec [error somnia finxit ].* 


The inadequacy of the arguments adduced by the Stoics in sup- 
port of the theory of centripetal force is clearly shown by Lucretius, 
who denies that infinite space can have any center, and asserts that 
if it were possible, nothing could come to a rest at this point, since 
.space will always yield to heavy bodies, which cannot lose their 
weight, in whatever direction they move.‘ 

The inconsistency of the Stoics in asserting that only the heavy 
elements, earth and water, press to the center, while air and _ fire 





TIT, 45, 113, 116. 

2 Munro, Il, p. 114. 
JT, 1060-8. 

1, 1069-82. 


96 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


mount upward, is expressed not only in this connection, but in a 
subsequent passage, in which Lucretius refutes the Aristotelian 
notion of an upward centrifugal force.’ The language of Lucretius 
is full of force, and justly represents the views of his antagonists, 


Praeterea quoniam non omnia corpora fingunt 
In medium niti, sed terrarum atque liquoris, 

Et quast terreno quae corpore contineantur, 
Umorem ponti magnasque e montibus undas, 

At contra tenuis exponunt aerts auras 

Et calidos simul a medio differrier ignis, 

Alque ideo totum circum tremere aethera signis 
Et solis flammam per caeli caerula pasct 

Quod calor a medio fugiens se thi conligat omnts, 
Nec prorsum arboribus summos frondescere ramos 
Posse, nisi a lerris paulatim cuique cibatum, etc.* 


The teaching of Zeno, as we have sufficient evidence, confirms the 
charge of incongruity which Lucretius here makes against his 
followers: 


οὐ πάντως δὲ σῶμα βάρος ἔχειν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀβαρῆ εἶναι ἀέρα Kal πῦρ’ γίγνεσθαι δὲ καὶ 
ταῦτά πως ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς ὅλης σφαίρας τοῦ κόσμου μέσον, τὴν δὲ σύστασιν πρὸς τὴν 
περιφέρειαν αὐτοῦ ποιεῖσθαι κ.τ.λ.5 


In has been observed by Munro that ‘‘had Epicurus, while retain- 
ing his conceptions of infinite space and matter and innumerable 
worlds and systems, seen fit to adopt this Stoical doctrine of things 
tending to a center, and so to make his atoms rush from all sides of 
space alike towards a center, he might have anticipated the doctrine 
of universal gravity.”* But he did not possess interest enough in 
the problems of physical science to pursue them beyond their imme- _ 
diate and obvious relation to ethical questions, nor was his know- 
ledge of mathematics sufficient to lead him toward the discovery 
which has made the name of Newton immortal. Lucretius, though 





1TI, 184-215. 
21, 1083-93. 

_ 3 Stobaeus, Eclogae, in Munro, II, p. 114. 
4], p. 114. 


THE STOICS. 97 


exhibiting keener powers of scientific observation than Epicurus 
evinces in any fragments of his writings which have been preserved, 
is in this instance, as in many others, but the echo of his idolized 
master. 


Omnis enim locus ac spatium, quod in [ane vocamus], 
Per medium, per non medium, concedere [ debet } 
Aeque ponderibus, motus qua cumque feruntur. 

Nec quisquam locus est, quo corpora cum venerunt, 
Ponderis amissa vt possint stare in inant: 

Nec quod inane autem est ulli subsistere debet, 

Quin, sua quod natura petit, concedere pergat. 

Hlaud igitur possunt tali ratione tenerit 

Res in concilium medit cuppedine vinciae.' 


Having shown his hostility to the Stoic conceptions of the origin, 
constitution and maintenance of the universe, it is natural that 
Lucretius should oppose the doctrine of the immortality and divinity 
of the world as held by the followers of Zeno. This he does in the 
following vigorous protest: 


Multa tibi expediam docts solacia dicits ; 
Religione refrenatus ne forte rearis 

Terras et solem et caelum, mare sidera lunam, 
Corpore divino debere aeterna manere, 
Proplereaque putes ritu par esse Gigantum 
Pendere eos poenas inmani pro scelere omnis, 
Qui ratione sua disturbent moenia mundi 
Praeclarumque velint cael restinguere solem, - 
Lnmortalia mortali sermone notantes ; 

Quae procul usque adeo divino a numine distent, 
Luque deum numero quae sint indigna vider?, 
Notitiam potius praebere ut posse putentur 
Quid sit vitali motu sensugue remotum.’* 


While there was apparently some diversity of opinion among the 
Stoic leaders regarding portions of the doctrine herein assailed, 





1T, 1074-82. Cf. Diogenes Laertius, X, 43, 61. 
Ἔν 113-25. 


98 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


there was perfect unanimity touching the identification of the 
creative energy inherent in primordial fire with deity. The all- 
pervading essence which was responsible for the world and its phen- 
omena, they argued, could only be defined as the highest reason, : 
operative in matter as the soul isin man. The unity and perfection 
of the world could only be accounted for on this theory. Nor, with- 
out a rational principle acting upon formless matter, could reason- 
ing creatures be produced out of the world. ~This rational essence, 
this anima mundi, is God, But since, according to the Stoics, deity 
could only attain reality when clothed with material forms, it was in- 
evitable that the universe and its parts should be regarded as bodying 
forth divinity, and that ultimately the distinction between the ex- 
ternal manifestation and the inner spirit of being should be so 
obscured as to be practically lost, and the divinity of the world be 
acknowledged. And this pantheistic conception seems to have pre- 
vailed among all the great Stoics except Boethus, who insisted on a 
separation between God and the world.' 


Cicero has presented the Stoic view of the divinity of the universe 
and its parts, and the arguments by which this proposition was sus- 
tained with great fulness, as the accompanying excerpts from his 
elaborate discussion will sufficiently show. To Zeno he attributes 


these sentiments: 


Quod ratione utitur, id melius est quam id, quod ratone non utiiur ; 
nthil autem mundo melius; ratione igitur mundus utttur. . . . 
Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse senhens; mundi 
aulem partes sentientes sunt; non igitur caret sensu mundus. 

Nihil quod animt quodque rationis est expers, td gen- 
erare ex se potest animantem conpotemque rahonis; mundus autem 
generat animantis conpolesque rationis; animans est igitur mundus com- 
posque rationis. . . . Cur igitur mundus non animans sapiensque 


tudicetur, cum ex se procreet animantis atque sapientis δ᾽ 

Natura est igitur, quae contineat mundum omnem eumque tueatur, et 
ea quidem non sine sensu aique ratione; omnem enim naluram necesse 
est, quae non solitaria sit neque simplex, sed cum alo tuncta alque conexa, 





1 Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 144-160. 
2 De Natura Deorum, Il, 21, 22. 


THE STOICS. 99 


habere aliquem in se principatum. . . . Principatum autem id dico, 
quod Graect ἡγεμονικόν vocani, quo nihil in quoque genere nec potest nec 
debet esse praestantius. Ita necesse est tllud eam, in quo sit totius naturae 
principalus, esse omnium optimum omniumque rerum potestate dominatuque 
dignissimum. Videmus auiem in partibus mundi (nthil est enim in omnt 
mundo, quod non pars universt sit) inesse sensum atque rationem. In ea 
parte igilur, in qua mundi inest principatus, haec inesse necesse est, et 
acriora quidem aique mawora. (Quodcirca sapientem esse mundum necesse 
est, naturamque eam, quae res omnes conplexa teneat, perfectione ration- 
ws excellere, eoqgue deum esse mundum, omnemque vim mundi natura di- 
vina continert.* 


In arguing for the eternal wisdom and virtue of the world the 
Stoic advocate says: 


Si rationts particeps sit nec sit tamen a principio sapiens, non sit deter- 
wor mundi potius quam humana condicio; homo enim sapiens fiert potest, 
mundus autem st in aeterno praeteriti temports spatio fui insipiens, nun- 
guam profecto sapientiam consequetur, tia ertt homine detertor. Quod 
quoniam absurdum est, et sapiens a principio mundus et deus habendus est. 

. . . ΔῊ autem nihil mundo perfectius, nihil virtute melius ; igttur 
mundi est propria virtus. Nec vero hominis natura perfecta est, et ef- 
ficitur famen in homine virtus; quanto igitur in mundo facilius. Est 
ergo in eo virtus; sapiens est igitur et proplerea deus.” 


Diogenes Laertius, in specifying the opinions of Zeno’s disciples on 
the subject under discussion, has the following: 


λέγουσι δὲ κόσμον τριχῶς, αὐτόν τε τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἐκ πάσης οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιόν, ὃς 
δὴ ἄφθαρτός ἐστι καὶ ἀγένητος, δημιουργὸς ἢν τῆς διακοσμήσεως, κατὰ χρόνων 
ποιὰς περιόδους ἀναλίσκων εἰς ἑαυτὸν τὴν ἅπασαν οὐσίαν καὶ πάλιν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ 
γεννῶν." 

θεὸν δὲ, εἶναι ζῶον ἀθάνατον, λογικὸν,τέλειον, ἢ νοερὸν ἐν εὐδαιμονίᾳ, κακοῦ παν- 
τὸς ἀνεπίδεκτον προνοητικὸν κόσμου τε καὶ τῶν ἐν κόσμῳ" μὴ εἶναι μέντοι ἀνθρωπό- 
μορφον. εἶναι δὲ τὸν μὲν, δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων, καὶ ὥσπερ πατέρα πάντων’ κοινῶς 
τε καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ τὸ διῆκον διὰ πάντων, ὃ πολλαῖς προσηγορίαις προσονομά- 
ἵεται κατὰ τὰς δυνάμεις." 





1 De Natura Deorum, ΤΠ, 29, 30. 
2 [b., 36-39. 

3 Diogenes Laertius, VY, 137. 
*70., 147. 


TOO CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


οὐσίαν δὲ θεοῦ Ζήνων μὲν φησι Tov ὅλον κόσμον, kal τὸν οὐρανόν’ ὁμοιως δὲ Kal 
Χρύσιππος ἐν τῷ ιά περὶ θεῶν, καὶ ἸΤοσειδώνιος ἐν πρώτῳ περὶ θεῶν." 


It is but a step from the acknowledgment of the deity of the 
world to the acceptance of the divinity of the heavenly bodies which 
form such an important part of the κόσμος. This the Stoic Balbus 
avers in Cicero’s dissertation on the nature of the gods.’ 

In the same immediate connection is a hearty commendation of 
Aristotle, whose views on the doctrine under discussion har- 
monized with the Stoic teaching, and against whom, therefore, 
together with the Peripatetics, and even Plato, who taught a similar 
theory, Lucretius, as Munro maintains, evidently directs his shaft.’ 


Because, as has already been demonstrated in the third book of 
his poem, mind cannot be conceived by him as existing apart from 
the body, senses and blood, Lucretius insists that the world and its 
parts cannot be endowed with vitality and intelligence, and is there- 
fore not divine.* 

But, while this passage seems conclusive against the doctrine of the 
world as a living organism, it must be acknowledged that Lucretius 
has been betrayed by his poetic feeling into characterizing the uni- 
verse in terms which are only appropriate in connection with living 
beings. Following the analogy of the human body, he has described 
the world as being produced, increased, wasted and ultimately de- 
stroyed like an animal. According. to his opinion, it assimilates 
food, breathes through pores, puts forth herbage corresponding with 





1 Diogenes Laertius, VU, 148. ; 

2 Aigue hac mundi divinitate perspecta tribuenda est sideribus eadem divinitas, 
quae ex mobilissima purissimague aetheris parte gignuntur, neque ulla praeterea 
sunt admixta natura totaque sunt calida atgue perlucida, ut ea quogue rectissime et 
animantia esse et sentire atque intellegere dicantur.—De Natura Deorum, Il, 39. 

οἱ Στωικοὶ. . ἀποφαίνονται... θεοὺς δὲ Kal τὸν κόσμον Kal τοὺς ἀστέρας Kal 
Plac. δ 7, 3.3 Dox., 305, in Ritter 





τὴν γῆν, Tov δ᾽ ἀνωτάτω πάντων νοῦν αἰθέρι. 
et Prelier, 398B. 


Sensum autem astrorum atque intellegentiam maxume declarat ordo eorum atque 


constantia. . . . Sequitur ergo. ut ipsa sua sponte, suo sensu ac divinitate 
moveantur.—De Natura Deorum, 11, 43. 
$i, 291: 


4V, 138-45. 


THE STOICS. IOI 


the hair and feathers of animals, begets offspring and exhibits the 
multiform and varied phenomena of living creatures. ἢ 

Epicurus denounces the doctrine of the divinity of the stars in 
the following language : 

μήτε αὖ πυρὸς ἀνάμματα συνεστραμμένου τὴν μακαριότητα κεκτημένα κατὰ βού- 
λησιν τὰς κινήσεις ταύτας λαμβάνειν." 

δεῖ κατανοεῖν, ὅτι τάραχος ὁ κυριώτατος ταῖς ἀνθρωπίναις ψυχαῖς γίνεται ἐν τῷ 
ταῦτα μακάριά τε δοξάζειν (εἶναι) καὶ ἄφθαρτα, καὶ ὑπεναντίας ἔχειν τούτῳ βουλή- 
“σεις ἅμα καὶ πράξεις καὶ αἰτίας." 

Though Lucretius denies the divinity of the world, he is not so far 
apart from his philosophic rivals on the question of the world’s de- 
structibility as on first observation would appear to be the case. 
The difference between the Stoic and the Epicurean positions on this 
subject was due chiefly to the divergence of their respective concep- 
tions of the universe. Zeno and many of his disciples held the theory 
of recurrent cycles in the career of the world. As matter had in the 
process of creation been separated from primary being, so eventually 
it would return to primary being at the end of the present course of 
things, when a general conflagration would dissolve everything into 
its primitive elemental condition. As soon as this dissolution had 
occurred, however, there would begin the formation of a new world 
exactly conforming in every particular to the preceding one, the 
identical persons, things and events completing the new cycle which 
existed in the previous aeon. 

ἀρέσκει δ᾽ αὐτοῖς καὶ φθαρτὸν εἶναι τὸν κόσμον, ἅτε γενητὸν τῷ λόγῳ τῶν δι᾽ αἰσθή- 
Tews νοουμένων" οὗ τε τὰ μέρη φθαρτά, ἔστι καὶ τὸ ὅλον’ τὰ δὲ μέρη τοῦ κόσμου φθαρτά, 
és ἄλληλα γὰρ μεταβάλλει’ φθαρτὸς ἄρα ὁ κόσμος. καὶ ἔι τι ἐπιδεκτικόν ἐστι τῆς 
ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον μεταβολῆς, φθαρτόν ἐστι’ καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἄρα" ἐξαυχμοῦται γὰρ καὶ 
ἐξυδατοῦται."’ 

Χρύσιππος. . . φησὶν αὔξεσθαι μέχρις ἂν εἰς αὑτὸν ἅπαντα καταναλώσῃ. 
ἐπεὶ γὰρ ὁ θάνατος μέν ἐστι ψυχῆς χωρισμὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ἣ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου 
ψυχὴ οὐ χωρίζεται μὲν αὔξεται δὲ συνεχῶς μέχρις ἂν εἰς αὑτὴν ἐξαναλώσῃ τὴν 
ὕλην, οὐ ῥητέον ἀποθνήσκειν τὸν κόσμον. 





'Cf. Il, 1105-74; VI, 492-4; V, 788-91; I, 774. Masson, Atomic Theory of 
Lucretius, pp. 143-9, has a very lucid discussion of this apparent incongruity. 

* Diogenes Laertius, X, 77. 

3 Jb., 81. 

* Jb., VIl,- 141. 

° Plut. Sto. Rep., 39. 2. 7. 1052, in Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 
164, 2. 


102 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


While this is the view of the Stoics in the main, several prominent . 
leaders, including Panaetius, Boethus and others, dissented from 
this judgment. Posidonius is also claimed by Philo as in this class, 
But Diogenes Laertius, who is confirmed by Plutarch and Stobaeus, 
asserts that Posidonius believed in the theory of recurrent world- 
cycles. ' 

The Stoic universe, it must be remembered, however, consisted of 
the κόσμος, 7. 6., the world-system of which the earth is the centre, - 
and infinite space. Into this limitless void the κόσμος was dissolved, 
and from this boundless space it was called together again after each 
conflagration. In this sense its immortality must be understood. 
The Epicurean universe, on the other hand, was filled with innum- 
erable worlds or systems, each of which, as it had arisen in time out 
of the fortuitous concourse of atoms, would also in time wear away 
and utterly disintegrate into its original and indivisible atoms. But 
the process of creating worlds anew would continue to infinity, the 
clashing atoms striking out some fresh order and system as often as 
by accident the conditions of world formation should be ful- 
filled. In a way, therefore, the Epicurean τὸ πᾶν is as immortal as 
the Stoic κόσμος, though the individual world systems of the former 
are eternally subject to destruction. 

Stoicism, it has been remarked, is as much a system of religion as 
it is a system of philosophy.” Theological questions, therefore, oc- 
cupy a position of pre-eminent importance in its scheme of thought. 
Moreover, its advocates constantly attempt to harmonize its prin- 
ciples with conventional religion. Epicureanism, on the other 
hand, treats theology with little less than contempt, and protests 
against the traditional faith as stultifying to the intellect and per- 
nicious in its influence on character. The Stoic asserts his belief in 
God on the ground that the existence of the world and the phenom- 
ena of life are inexplicable without the hypothesis of an originating 
and controlling Reason, and because the notion of deity is one of 
the primary and universal judgments of mankind.* The Epicurean, 





1 Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, Ὁ. 168, τ. 


2Jb., p. 342. 
3 Cicero, De Natura Deorum, WU, 4-12. 


THE STOICS. 103 


on the contrary, discerns nothing in nature to indicate the governing 
presence of the divine, but agrees with the Stoic, though for reasons 
of his own, that the universal belief in the godsis based on the actual 
existence of these deities. 


Solus enim (Epicurus) vidit primum esse deos, quod in omnium an- 
imis eorum notionem impressissel ipsa natura, (Quae est enim gens aut 
quod genus hominum, quod non habeat sine doctrina anticipationem quan- 
dam deorum? quam appellat πρόληψιν Lpicurus, id est anticeptam animo 
ret quandam informationem, sine qua nec intelligt quicquam nec quaert 
nec disputart potest.' 


That Epicurus believed this πρόληφις to be wrought upon the hu- 
man consciousness by those emanations, the. doctrine of which he 
borrowed from Empedocles and Democritus, and which have already 
been considered by us,’ is amply testified. 

*Enrixoupos δὲ ἐκ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ὕπνους φαντασιῶν οἴεται τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἔννοι- 


av ἐσπακέναι θεοῦ" μεγάλων γὰρ εἰδώλων, φησί, καὶ ἀνθρωπομόρφων κατὰ ᾿τοὺς 
ὕπνους προσπιπτόντων ὑπέλαβον καὶ ταῖς ἀληθείαις ὑπάρχειν τινὰς τοιούτους 


θεοὺς ἀνθρωπομόρφους." 
Cicero’s Epicurean advocate suggests the same: 


Nam a natura habemus omnes omnium gentium specitem nullam aliam 
nist humanam deorum,; quae enim forma alia occurrit umquam aut vigil- 
anti cuiquam aut dormientiP? Sed ne omnia revocentur ad primas nott- 
ones: ratio hoc idem ipsa declarat.* 


Lucretius expresses the same theory: 


de corpore quae sancto simulacra feruntur 
In mentes hominum divinae nuntia_formae.° 


Quippe elenim iam tum divom mortala saecla 
Egregias animo facies vigilante videbani, 
Lt magis in somnis mirando corporis auctu. 





1 Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 1, 43. θεοὶ μὲν yap εἰσίν" ἐναργὴς yap αὐτῶν ἐσ- 
τιν ἣ γνῶσις. Diogenes Laertius, X, 123. 

ἜΡΡ. 17, 49, 50. 

3Sextus Math. IX, 25, in Usener Epicurea, p. 238. 

*De Natura Deorum, I. 46. 

° VI, 76, 77. 


104 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


fis tgitur sensum tribuebant propterea quod 
Membra movere videbantur vocesque superbas 
Mittere pro facie praeclara et viribus amplis. 
Aelernamque dabant vitam, quia semper eorum 
Subpeditabatur facies et forma manebat, 

Et tamen omnino quod tantis viribus auctos 
Non temere ulla vi convinct posse putabant. 
Fortunisque ideo longe praestare putabant, 
Quod morts timor haut quemquam vexaret eorum, 
Et simul in somnis quia mulla et mira videbant 
Eficere ef nullum capere tpsos inde laborem.' 


It has also been conjectured that Epicurus maintained a belief in 
the gods in order to make possible the realization of the lofty ideals 
of happiness which he conceived, but which were confessedly never 
attained in human life.’ ! 

But the opinions of the character and function of the gods as held 
by the Stoics and Epicureans respectively were totally at variance. 
Primary being was conceived of by the Stoics, in one aspect, as the 
Generative Reason, from which and by which all things are produced. 
Attention has already been drawn to this tenet.* The accompany- 
ing quotations likewise support this position: 

τοῦτον γὰρ ὄντα ἀΐδιον διὰ πάσης αὐτῆς δημιουργεῖν ἕκαστα." 

ἕν τε εἶναι θεὸν καὶ νοῦν, καὶ εἱμαρμένην καὶ Δία, πολλαῖς τε ἑτέραις ὀνομασὶαις 
προσονομάζεσθαι. κατ᾽ ἀρχὰς μὲν οὖν καθ᾽ αὑτὸν ὄντα, τρέπειν τὴν πᾶσαν οὐσί- 
αν δὶ ἀέρος εἰς ὕδωρ’ καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ γονῇ τὸ σπέρμα περιέχεται, οὕτω καὶ τοῦτον 
σπερματικὸν λόγον ὄντα τοῦ κόσμου, τοιόνδε ὑπολιπέσθαι ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ, εὐεργὸν αὐ- 
τῷ ποιοῦντα τὴν ὕλην πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἑξῆς γένεσιν’ εἶτα ἀπογεννᾷν πρῶτον τὰ τέσ- 
capa στοιχεῖα, πῦρ, ὕδωρ, ἀέρα, γῆν. 

Δία μὲν γάρ φασι, δὶ ὃν τα πάντα’ Ζῆνα δὲ καλοῦσι, παῤ ὅσον τοῦ ζῇν αἴτιός 
ἐστιν, ἢ διὰ τοῦ ζῆν κεχώρηκεν᾽' ᾿Αθηνᾶν δὲ, κατὰ τὴν εἰς αἰθέρα διάτασιν τοῦ ἣγε- 
μονικοῦ αὐτοῦ’ Ἥραν δὲ, κατὰ τὴν εἰς τὸ τεχνικὸν πῦρ’ καὶ Ποσειδῶνα, κατὰ τὴν 
εἰς τὸ ὐγρόν' καὶ Δήμητραν, κατὰ τὴν εἰς yfiv' ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰς ἄλλας προσηγορ- 
ίας, ἐχόμενοί τινος οἰκειότητος, ἀπέδοσαν." 





1V, 1169-82. 

2 Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 466. 
3 Diogenes Laertius, VII, 137, quoted p. 99. 
ἘΣ Villy Se 

6 Jb., 135, 136. 

6 Jb., 147. 


THE STOICS. 105 


It is obvious from these declarations that, while the Stoics in strict 
consistency assigned the name of Deity in its original significance only 
to the sole’ primary Being, | ‘‘they did not hesitate to apply it in a 
limited and derivative sense to all those objects by means of which 
the divine power is especially manifested.” ' 

The Epicureans, on the other hand, derided the very idea of the 
directing presence of deity in the creation, preservation and guidance 
of the world. The prime purpose of Lucretius, announced at the 
beginning of his poem and reiterated many times in its progress, is to 
demonstrate 7 


et unde queat res quaeque creart 
Et quo quaeque modo fiant opera sine divom.* 


Velleius, Cicero’s exponent of Epicurean principles, ridicules the 
doctrine of the creation of the world through divine agency, and 
charges the Stoics with resorting to the hypothesis of gods for lack 
of any rational method of accounting for the phenomena of nature. 


Docuit enim nos idem, qui cetera, natura effectum esse mundum, nihil 
opus Suisse fabrica, lamque eam rem esse facilem, quam vos effict negatis 
sine divina posse solertia, ut innumerabilis natura mundos effectura sit, 
eficrat, effecertt. Quod quia quem ad modum natura efficere sine aliqua 
mente possit non videtis, ut tragict poetae, cum explicare argumentt 
exttum non potestis, confugitis ad deum.* 


The gods of the Epicureans are beings like men, but of a more re- 
fined essence. ‘Lhe εἴδωλα of the gods which are presented to our 
minds, whether asleep or awake, take the figure of men. Moreover, 
the human form is the most admirable that can be conceived of for 
rational and happy beings. But divine bodies are not tangible to 


mortals. 


Hominis esse specie deos confitendum est. Nec lamen ea species cor- 
pus est, sed quasi corpus, nec habet sanguinem, sed quast sanguinem. 





1 Zeller. Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 347. 
ei, 357; 8, 
3 De Natura Deorum, I, 53. 


106 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


: Epicurus autem, qui res occultas et penitus abditas non modo 
vidertt animo, sed etiam sic tractet, ut manu, docet eam esse vim et nalur- 
am deorum, ut primum non sensu, sed mente cernatur,; nec soliditale 
quadam nec ad numerum, ut ea, quae ille propler firmitatem στερέμνια ap- 
pellat, sed imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis.* 


Tenvis enim natura deum longeque remota 
Senstbus ab nosiris animt vix mente videtur ; 

Quae quoniam manuum taclum suffugil el tclum, 
Tactile nil nobis quod sit contingere deéet. 

Tangere enim non quit quod tangi non licet ipsum.” 


Now, these deities, which are innumerable, are immortal and per- 
~_fectly happy. 

πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῴον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων, ὡς ἣ κοινὴ τοῦ θεοῦ 
νόησις ὑπεγράφη, μηθὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος 
ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε' πᾶν δὲ τὸ φυλάττειν αὐτοῦ δυνάμενον ὅτ μετὰ ἀφθαρ- 
σίας μακαριότητα περὶ αὐτὸν δόξαζε." 

τὸ Seen Kal ἄφθαρτον οὔτε αὐτὸ πράγματα ἔχει οὔτε ἄλλῳ παρέχει, ὥστε 
οὔτε ὀργαῖς οὔτε χάρισι συνέχεται’ ἐν ἀσθενεῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον." 

Ea videlicet, qua nthil beahus, nthil omnibus bonis affuentius cogitart 
potest. Nihil enim agit, nullis occupationibus est inplicatus, nulla opera 
moliur, sua sapientia et virtute gaudet, habet ess Sore se semper 
cum in maximis, tum in aeternis salsipiariies. 


Omnis enim per se divom natura necessest 
Lnmortali aevo summa cum pace frua/ur 
Semota ab nostris rebus setunctaque longe,; 
Nam privata dolore omnt, privata fericlis, 

[psa suis pollens opibus, nil indiga nostri, 

Nec bene promeritis capitur neque tangitur ira.® 


Their places of abode must also differ from the habitations of men, 
corresponding in refinement with their bodies. 








1 Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 1, 49. 
2 Lucretius, V, 148-52. 

% Diogenes Laertius, X, 123. 

4 /b., 139, I 

δ. De Natura Deorum, I, 51. 

ὁ Lucretius, Il, 646-51. 


THE STOICS. 107 


Quare etiam sedes quogue nostris sedibus esse 
Dissimiles debent, tenues de corpore eorum.* 


Apparet divum numen sedesque quietae 

Quas neque concutiunt venti nec-nubila nimbis 
Asperguni neque nix acri concretla pruina 
Cana cadens violat semperque innubilis aether 
L[ntegit, et large diffuso lumine rident. 

Omnia suppedilat porro natura neque ulla 
Res animi pacem delibat tempore in ullo.* 


Gods, however, it is easy to observe, who have the amount of bus- 
iness on their hands which the Stoics attribute to their deities, must 
be far from happy, so Epicurus and his disciples would contend. 


οὐ γὰρ συμφωνοῦσιν πραγματεῖαι καὶ φροντίδες kal ὀργαὶ kal χάριτες μακαριό- 
τητι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ προσδεήσει τῶν πλησίον ταῦτα γίνεται." 

καὶ ἡ θεία φύσις πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῇ προσαγέσθω, ἀλλ᾽ ἀλειτούργητος διατηρεί- 
σθω καὶ ἐν τῇ πάσῃ μακαριότητι. ᾿ : 


The Epicurean Velleius indulges in merriment over the Stoic 
notion of the world as a divinity, eternally revolving in space with 
inevitable discomfort, and seriously combats their favorite doctrine of 
Providence on the ground that such constant occupation would be 
destructive of the peace and quietude which are indispensable in his 
opinion to the complete happiness of the gods. 


Sive in ipso mundo deus tnest aliquis, qui regal, qui gubernet, qui cur- 
sus astrorum, mutationes femporum, rerum vicissttudines ordinesque con- 
servel, lerras et maria contemplans hominum commoda vitasque tueatur, 
ne ille est implicatus molestis negotits et operosis! Nos autem beatam vit- 
am in animi securitate ef in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus.° 


We have already seen how necessary to the happiness of the gods 
Lucretius regards their total exemption from the cares of government. 





EY, 1§3;4- 

ἘΠΕ 18-24. 

* Diogenes Laertius, X, 77. 

of Say Be 

5 De Natura Deorum, I, 52, 53. 


108 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


But the providence of the gods is a doctrine to which the Stoics 
adhered with extraordinary tenacity. It was esteemed fundamental 
in their system of philosophy. 


τὸν δὴ κόσμον διοικεῖσθαι κατὰ νοῦν καὶ πρόνοιαν. .΄. . els ἅπαν αὐτοῦ μέρος 
διήκοντος τοῦ νοῦ, καθάπερ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν τῆς ψυχῆς. . .. οὕτω δὴ καὶ τὸν ὅλον κόσ- 
μον ζῴον ὄντα καὶ ἔμψυχον καὶ λογικὸν ἔχειν ἡγεμονικὸν μὲν τὸν αἰθέρα, κ. τ. λ.". 

λέγει γοῦν Χρύσιππος ἐοικέναι τῳ μὲν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν κόσμον, τῇ δὲ 
ψυχῇ τὴν πρόνοιαν’ ὅταν οὖν ἐκπύρωσις γένηται, μόνον ἄφθαρτον ὄντα τὸν Δία 
τῶν θεῶν ἀναχωρεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν πρόνοιαν, εἶτα ὁμοῦ γενομένους ἐπὶ μιᾶς τῆς τοῦ αἰθέ- 
ρος οὐσίας διατελεῖν ἀμφοτέρους." 


The Stoic Balbus presents the arguments of his school in defence 
of the doctrine of the providence of the gods in a three-fold arrange- 
ment, as follows: First, if we admit the existence of gods, we must 
grant that they govern the world, otherwise they would not deserve 
the title of deities; for the very conception of gods implies that they 
are independent of all power other than their own, and that they 
work together harmoniously and wisely for the noblest end, which is 
nothing less than the government of the world. Second, the order 
and unity of the universe indicate that all its parts are under the 
control of a force working intelligently and skillfully, which we de- 
nominate Nature. But it is impossible for a thinking man to exam- 
ine this orderly course of the world without being convinced that it 
is under the direction of a wise mind. Third, the regularity, har- 
mony and beauty of the heavenly bodies; the constitution, endow- 
ments and wondrous adaptations of plants and animals; and the 
various productions of the earth, suited so remarkably to the need 
of living creatures, all unite to confirm the wise man in his belief in 
a divine providence.* Based on the most reliable extant authorities, 
Zeller has formulated the Stoic arguments for this doctrine in this 
order: (1) From the general conviction of mankind. (2) From the 
perfection of God. (3) From the theory of necessity. (4) From 
the foreknowledge of God. (5) From the existence of diviniation. * 


' Diogenes Laertius, VU, 138, 139. 

2 Plutarch, De Comm. Notit.; 36. 5, p. 1077, in Ritter et Preller, gor B. 
3 De Natr.ra Deorum, Il, 75-152. 

* Stoics. Lepicureans and Sceptics. pp. 173-75- 


THE STOICS. 10g 


Perhaps the finest expression of the Stoic belief in the guidance of 
God which has been preserved for us is contained in the famous 
Hymn to Zeus by Cleanthes, a portion of which we quote. 


κύδιστ᾽ ἀθανάτων, πολνώνυμε, παγκρατὲς αἰεί, 
Ζεῦ, φύσεως ἀρχηγέ, νόμον μέτα πάντα κυβερνῶν, 
χαῖρε" σὲ γὰρ πάντεσσι θέμις θνητοῖσι προσαυδᾶν. 
ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ γένος ἔσμεν, ἰῆς μίμημα λαχόντες 
μοῦνοι, ὅσα {wet τὲ καὶ ἕρπει θνήτ᾽ ἐπὶ γαῖαν. 

τῷ σε καθυμνήσω, καὶ σὸν κράτος αἰὲν ἀείσω. 

σοὶ δὴ πᾶς ὅδε κόσμος, ἑλισσόμενος περὶ γαῖαν 
πείθεται τ κεν ἄγῃς καὶ ἐκὼν ὑπὸ σεῖο κρατεῖται. 
τοῖον ἔχεις ὑποεργὸν ἀκινήτοις ἐνὶ χερσίν, 
ἀμφήκη, πυρόεντα, ἀεὶ ζώοντα κεραυνόν, 

τοῦ γὰρ ὑπὸ πληγῇς φύσεως πάντ᾽ ἐῤῥιγασιν. 


οὐδέ τι γίγνεται ἔργον ἐπὶ χθονὶ σοῦ δίχα, δαῖμον, 
οὔτε kat αἰθέριον θεῖον πόλον, οὔτ᾽ ἐπὶ πόντῳ, 

πλὴν ὁπόσα ῥέζουσι κακοὶ σφετέρῃσιν ἀνοίαις. 
ἀλλὰ σὺ καὶ τὰ περισσὰ ἐπίστασαι ἄρτια θεῖναι, 

καὶ κοσμεῖς τὰ ἄκοσμα, καὶ οὐ φίλα σοὶ φίλα ἐστίν. 
ὧδε γὰρ εἰς ἕν ἅπαντα συνήρμοκας ἐσθλὰ κακοῖσιν, 
ὥσθ᾽ ἕνα γίγνεσθαι πάντων λόγον αἰὲν ἐόντα." 


The whole teaching of these noble verses is utterly repugnant to 
the theology of the Epicureans, who not only deem the labor of rul- 
ing the world incompatible with the unquestioned happiness of the 
gods, but who profess to see nothing in the adjustments of nature or 
the experience of men to justify a belief in the providence of the 
gods. One of the chief reasons for the Stoic confidence in the ex- 
istence and guardianship of the gods lies in the perfection of the 
world which they allege, but which the Epicureans strenuously 


deny. 


Quid autem est inscitius quam eam naturam, quae omnis res stl con- 
plexa, non optumam dict. . . . Neque enim est quicquam aliud 
praeter mundum, cui nthil absit, quodque undique apitum atque perfectum 
expletumque sit omnibus suis numerts et partibus.° 





1 Stobaeus Eclogae., 1, p. 30. 
2 Cicero, De Natura Deorum, Il, 36, 37. 


IIO CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


Lucretius can discover no warrant in nature for such a view. On 
the contrary, he finds such palpable imperfections in creation that if 
he were totally ignorant of the true philosophy of the universe he 
would still never hesitate to condemn the notion that the world was 
constructed by divine power. 


Nam quamvis rerum ignorem primordia quae sint, 
Hoc tamen ex ipsts caeli rationibus ausim 
Confirmare altisque ex rebus reddere multis, 
Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatam 

Naturam mundi; tanta stat praedita culpa. 


The argument by which Lucretius sustains his opinion is inter- 
esting, if not convincing. The defect of nature is apparent in the 1m- 
mense waste of the world as compared with its productive portions. 
Even where tillage is possible with almost incredible labor, the toil 
of the husbandman is frequently thrown away, for thorns infest the 
soil, and burning heat, chilling blasts and destructive hurricanes de- 
feat the projects of the farmer. Again, man himself is beset with 
constant perils. Ferocious beasts roam abroad. Disease and death 
walk in the train of the seasons. Helpless infancy is dependent on 
the care of elders, while the young of animals flourish attended only 
by the bounty of nature.” 

There is an uncertainty and capriciousness also about the opera- 
tion of some of the forces of nature, not to speak of the impossibil- 
ity that any personal agency should control these forms of energy, 
which prevents him from believing the gods maintain any active in- 
terest in the progress of human affairs. 


Quae bene cognita st teneas, natura videlur 

Libera continuo, domints privata superbis, 

Ipsa sua per se sponte omnia dis agere expers. 

Nam pro, sancta deum tranquilla pectora pace 

Quae placidum deguni aevom vitamque serenam, 
Quis regere immensi summam, quis habere profundi 
Indu manu validas potis est moderanter habenas, 





171, 177-81. 
᾿ V, 105-234. 


THE STOICS. II! 


Quis pariter caelos omnts convertere et omnis 
Lenibus aetherus ferras suffire feracts, 

Omnibus inve locts esse omni tempore praesto, 
Nubibus ut tenebras facial caeligue serena 
Concutat sonitu, tum fulmina mittat et aedis 
Saepe suas disturbet ef in deserta recedens 
Saeviat, exercens telum, quod saepe nocentes 
Praeterit exanimatque indignos inque merentes ?* 


The real animus of the Epicurean eagerness to disprove the prov- 
idence of the gods lies, of course, in the purpose to deliver men 
from the fear of deity, which Lucretius and nig school felt to be in- 
cident to a belief i in this doctrine, 


Nam et praestans deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum ef 
aelerna esset et beatissima (habet enim venerationem tustam, quicquid ex- 
cellit), et metus omnis a vt atque ira deorum pulsus esset; intellegitur 
enim a beata inmortalique natura et tram et gratiam segregart; quibus re- 
motis nullos a superis tmpendere metus.” 


The supreme inspiration of Lucretius’ philosophical inquiries is the 
desire to deliver men from the dread of divine malevolence. His 
passion for the redemption of mankind from irrational terrors is ex- 
ceedingly impressive. He bewails the puerile credulity of the race. 


Nam veluti puert trepidant aique omnia caects 
Ln tenebris metuunt, sic nos in luce timemus 
Interdum, nilo quae sunt metuenda magis quam 

* ΕΣ , Φ. 3 
Quae pueri 171 tenebris pavilant fingunique fulura. 


He would dispel such groundless forebodings by means of the rev- 
elations of true science. 


Hunc igitur terrorem animt tenebrasque necessest 
Non radii solis neque lucida tela diet 
Discutiant, sed nalurae spectes ratioque.* 





111, 1logo-1104. 

2 De Natura Deorum, 1, 45. 
ὍΤΙ, 55-58. 

#V, 1211-17. 


ΓΙ2 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


It is lack of knowledge which betrays men into misinterpretations 
of the phenomena of nature, and impels them to cringe before the 
gods as if they were the relentless enemies of mankind. We ob- 
serve the wondrous movements of the celestial bodies, and are in- 
capable of solving the problems of their regularity and persistence, 
and profound misgivings are awakened. 


Templtat enim dubiam mentem rationis egestas, 
Ecquaenam fuertt mundi genitalis origo, 

Lt simul ecquae sit finis, gquoad moenia mundi 
Solliciti motus hune possint ferre laborem, 
An divinitus aelerna donata salute 

Perpeluo possint aevi labentia tractu 

Immenst validas aevt contemnere viris.* 


The vivid lightnings and the noisy thunder terrify monarchs and 
people with the expectation of merited retribution, The tempestu- 
ous sea mocks the skill and defies the prayers of the mariner. The 
mysterious earthquake tumbles down the proudest works of man, 
while he, unable to account for these disasters on natural grounds, at- 
tributes them to the wrath of the gods.? 


O genus infelix humanum, talia divis 

Cum tribuil facta alque iras adiunxil acerbas! 
Quantos tum gemitus tpst stbt, quantaque nobis 
Volnera, quas lacrimas peperere minoribu’ nostrisf 


A better philosophy, Lucretius believes, would emancipate human- 
ity from the grasp of such a foolish trepidation; and with this in 
view he devotes the entire sixth book of his poem to the consider- 
ation of the physical phenomena which appall the senses. When 
men, for the want of the true reason of things, assign fear-inducing 
operations of nature to the activity of the gods, Lucretius feels that 
they are stultifying both themselves and the deities whom they seek 


to propitiate. 





IV, 1211-17. 
2V, 1218-40. 
ὅν, 1194-97. 


THE STOICS. 113 


Nam bene qui didicere deos securum agere aevom, 
Sv famen interea~mirantur qua ratione 
Quaeque geri possint, praesertim rebus tn illis 
Quae supera caput aethertis cernuntur in orts, 
Rursus in antiquas referuntur religionis, 
Et dominos acris adsciscunt, omnia posse 
Quos misert credunt, ignari quid queat esse, 
Quid nequeal, ἤπια potestas denique cuique 
Quanam sit ratione atque alte terminus haerens; 
Quo magts errantes caeca ratione feruntur. 
Quae nist respuis ex animo longeque remittis 
Dis indigna puiare alienaque pacis eorum, 
Delibata deum per te tibi numina sancta 
Saepe oberunt; non quo violart summa deum vis 
Posstt, ut ex tra poenas petere inbibat acris, 
Sed quia tute bi placida cum pace quietos 
Constitues magnos trarum volvere fluctus, 
Nec delubra deum placido cum pectore adibis, 
_Nec de corpore quae sancto simulacra feruntur 
In mentes hominum divinae nuntia formae, 
Suscipere haec animi tranquilla pace valelis. 
Inde videre licet qualis 1am vita sequatur.* 


Almost the only occasion for scientific study which Lucretius 
would deem legitimate is the necessity of showing by this kind of 
research that the things which terrify man in the external universe 
have a natural rather than a divine origin. And this is the reason 
which Epicurus himself gives for his investigations in the realm of 
physics. Men can never realize even approximate happiness until 
their bondage to superstition has been broken, a result which an 
inquiry into the processes of nature will achieve. 

εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν καὶ ai περὶ θανάτου, μή ποτε 
πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἡ τι, ἔτι τε τὸ μὴ κατανοεῖν τοὺς ὅρους τῶν αλγηδόνων καὶ τῶν ἐπιθυμι- 
ὧν, οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας." 


It is characteristic of Lucretius that after a lengthy disquisition on 





IVI, 56-74. 
2 Diogenes Laertius, X, 142. 


114 5 CONTROVERSIAL, ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


the natural philosophy of thunderbolts he should turn with vehe- 
mence upon the traditional mode of accounting for the ravages of 
lightning, and endeavor to reduce the theory to utter absurdity. It is 
folly, he says, to consult the Tuscan rolls to ascertain the will of the 
gods in the thunderbolt’s erratic course. If Jupiter controls the 
lightning why does he frequently smite the innocent instead of the 
guilty? Why does he direct his fiery bolts at solitary places on the 
earth? Why fling them into the sea? Why does he not warn us if 
he wishes us to escape the destructive agent? Why does he thunder 
if he wishes to take us off our guard? How can he hur! his shafts in 
so many different places at one time? Why does he thunder only 
when the sky is overclouded? Above all, why does Jupiter dash 
down his own sanctuaries and the cunningly wrought idols of the 
gods, and why does he aim chiefly at lofty summits?’ 

In arguing for the existence and providence of the gods, the 
Stoics placed much reliance on their doctrine of final causes. The 
subordination of means to ends was to them an obvious fact in all 
the minute details of the world’s career. Cleanthes supported his 
argument tor the existence of the gods by this form of proof, the 
most significant of his utterances on this subject being: 


Ut, st quis in domum aliquam aul in gymnasium aul in forum venerit, 
cum videat omnium rerum rationem, modum, disciplinam, non possil ea 
sine causa fiert tudicare, sed esse aliquem intellegat, qui praesit et cut 
pareatur, multo magis in fants motionibus tanhsque vicissitudinibus, fam 
multarum rerum atque tantarum ordinibus, in quibus nihil umquam in- 
mensa et infinita vetustas mentita sit, statual necesse est ab aliqgua mente 
tantos naturae motus gubernart.* 

The argument for providence is as pertinent as that for the exist- 
ence of the gods: 

Namque alit naturam esse censent vim quandam sine ratione cientem 
motus in corportbus necessarios, alii autem vim participem rationtis alque 
ordinis tamquam via progredtentem declarantemque, quid cutusque ret causa 
efficiat, quid sequatur, cuius sollertam nulla ars, nulla manus, nemo op- 
tfex consequi possit imitando; seminis enim vim esse taniam, ul id, 





VI, 379-422. 
3 Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ΤΊ, 5, 15. 


THE STOICS. 15 


quamquam sit perextguum, lamen, st inciderit in conciptentem conpren- 
dentemque naturam nanclumque sii materiam, qua alt augerique possit, 
tla fingal et efficiat in suo quidque genere.' 


With the Stoics the adapting of means to ends signified that every- 
thing had been created for something higher, except man and the 
gods, who existed for their own society: | 


Scite enim Chrysippus, ut clipet causa involucrum, vaginam autem 
glad, sic praeter mundum cefera omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ul 
eas fruges aique fructus, quos terra gignit, animantium causa, animan- 
tes autem hominum, ut equum vehendi causa, arandi bovem, venandi et 
custodiendi canem. 2956 autem homo ortus est ad mundum contemplan- 
dum et imitandum, nullo modo perfectus, sed est quaedam particula per- 
Sech.* Praeclare enim Chrysippus, cetera nata esse hominum causa et 
deorum, eos autem communitaiis ef soctetatts suae.* 


Naturally a system of philosophy which refers all phenomena to 
accidental causes would spurn any teleological theory. Accordingly 
we find Lucretius saying: 


Dicere porro hominum causa voluisse parare 
Praeclaram mundi naturam proplereaque 
Adlaudabile opus divom laudare decere 
Aelernumque putare atque immortale futurum 

Nec fas esse, deum quod sit ratione vetusta 
Gentibus humanis funda/um perpeluo aevo, 
Soliciare suis ulla vi ex sedibus umquam 

Nec verbts vexare et ab imo evertere summa, 
Cetera de genere hoc adfingere et addere, Memmi, 
Desiperest.* 


Cicero’s Epicurean expositor presents what he evidently regards an 
insoluble dilemma: 





1 De Natura Deorum, Il, 32, 81, 82. 
2 [b., 14, 37- 

3 De Finibus, 1Π1, 20, 67. 

*V, 156-165. 


116 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 


An haec, ut fere dicitis, hominum causa a deo constituta suntP  Sap- 
tentiumque? Propler paucos igitur tanta est facta rerum molitio. An 
stultorumP Al primum causa non fuil, cur de inprobis bene mereretur, 


etc.' 


To impose upon the gods, moreover, the premeditation involved 
in adapting the processes of nature to definite ends would be incom- 
patible with their happiness. What could induce them to assume 
such burdens? What injury should we have suffered if we had never 
been born? Whence did the gods derive their conception of man in 
order to create him?’ These are questions which Lucretius answers 
by denying the participation of the gods in mundane affairs, and by 
re-asserting his favorite thesis of the fortuitous concourse of atoms, 


Namque ita multa modis multis primordia rerum 
Ex infinito tam tempore percita plagis 
Ponderibusque suis consuerunt concita ferrt 
Omnimodisque coire alque omnia pertempiare, 
Quaecumque inter se possent congressa creare, 

Ut non sit mirum, st in lalis disposituras 
Deciderunt quoque et in talis venere meatus, 
Qualibus haec rerum geritur nunc summa novando.* 


Again, he asserts in the most unequivocal language his hostility to 
the doctrine that the functions of the body were originally created 
for the uses to which they have been placed. Experience, on the 
contrary, taught the use of these organs long after they had been 
constructed. Appliances of war and peace were invented for defin- 
ite purposes, but the senses and limbs of the human body, unlike 


swords, shields, cups and beds, were created without any final 


- Cause, τ 


Nil ideo quoniam natumst in corpore ut uit 
Possemus, sed quod natumst id procreal usum.* 





1 De Natura Deorum, I, 23. 
7V, 166-86. 

3 Jb., 187-194. 

ΕἾΝ, 823-57. 


THE STOICS. 117 


But while the Epicureans denounced the doctrine of divine prov- 
idence, they were not averse to a dispassionate veneration of the 
gods. The existence of deities they could not deny without being 
false, as we have seen, to their principle that every impression of the 
soul has its origin in objective reality. Deficient of any power to 
interfere in the affairs of men, the gods were nevertheless to be adored 
as beings of purity, holiness and eternal peace. Epicurus himself is 
praised for his piety. 

τῆς μὲν yap πρὸς θεοὺς ὁσιότητος καὶ πρὸς πατρίδα φιλίας ἄλεκτος 7 SiaGecrs.! 


His followers did not disdain to engage in religious ceremonies, 
and Cicero declares that, while Epicureans were hostile to traditional 
religion in theory, they were in repeated instances distinctly super- 
stitious. 

Now ego Epicureos omnia sigilla veneranies; quamquam video non 
nullis vidert Epicurum, ne in offenstonem Athentensium caderet, verbts 
reliquisse deos, re sustulisse.” 


In the elaborate and truly poetic phrasing of the myth of Kybele 
Lucretius appears to lend some countenance to the popular religion. 
But he is not a sincere expositor of the theology of the people, but 
a satirist, parodying the mode of accommodating physical facts to 
the traditional mythology of the ancient Greeks adopted by the 
Stoics. This is apparent from the declaration at the end of the 
passage: 





1 Diogenes Laertius, X, 10. 

2? De Natura Deorum, 1, 85. We have trustworthy evidence that Cicero, who 
has so fully presented the Epicurean case against the Stoics, derived his materials 
_ directly from Philodemus. From the legible remnants of this teacher found in the 
Volumina Herculanensia, it becomes quite apparent ‘that Cicero took the body of 
Φιλοδήμου περὶ εὐσεβείας, and appropriated it to his own uses. Mayor (De Natura 
Deorum, Introduction, pp. XLII, 1711) has given a strong putting of the case, 
from which we abridge the following points of resemblance between Cicero and 
Philodemus: 1. Particular citations from the writings of opponents, such as Xen- 
ophon, Antisthenes, Aristotle, Chrysippus, Diogenes of Babylon. 2. Divisions 
of the two documents. (a) Criticism of popular mythology. (4) Criticism of the 
older philosophers. (c) Exposition of Epicurean theology. 3. Similar lists in 
Cicero and Philodemus of philosophers, following much the same order. These 
are arranged in parallel columns by Diels (Doxographi Graeci, pp. 537-50), and 
afford a striking confirmation of the theory that Cicero used Philodemus freely. 


118 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


Hic siquis mare Neptunum Cereremque vocare 
Conshituit fruges et Bacchi nomine abut 

Mavolt quam laticis proprium proferre vocamen, 
Concedamus ut hic terrarum dichtet orbem 
E’sse deum matrem, dum vera re tamen 1256 
Religione animum turpi contingere parcat.* 


The true animus of Lucretius is seen in the lines immediately pre- 
ceding, in which he proclaims the doctrine of the happiness and 
supreme repose of the gods, who rest in blissful security unmoved by 
,the prayers and miseries of mankind.” The absurd length to which 
the Stoics carried their method of allegorical interpretation, an am- 
ple illustration of which we have in Cicero’s exposition of the sub- 
ject,* justified the warmth of Lucretius’ satire. For with an elasticity, 
which to a man as earnest as Lucretius seemed insincerity, the Stoics 
in a derivative sense invested with the prerogatives of deity stars, 
years, mionths, seasons, air, earth, fire, water, fruits, wine, etc., 
then great heroes, and finally the very qualities which dignify spirit- 
ual beings, hope, truth, freedom, honor, virtue, justice, love, ete. 
With marvellous facility, therefore, Stoicism could assimilate to itself 
the conceptions of conventional polytheism. The Epicurean, on 
the other hand, was willing to give a poetic interpretation to the an- 
thropomorphic ideas of the people, and by reason of hisassumption of 
innumerable gods, was able to bring himself into sympathetic rela- 
tions with persons adhering to the traditional cult, while at the same 
time he successfully undermined the whole scheme of the popular 
religion by his rationalistic explanations. Lucretius consents to call 
the earth the mother of the gods, and, as we have seen, permits the 
names Neptune, Ceres, , Bacchus, to be employed for the sea, corn 
and wine. But he emphatically asserts that Epicurus, whose philos- 
ophy emancipates men from superstition, is more deserving of divine 
honors than Ceres, Liber and Hercules, the last mentioned being 
especially revered by the Stoics.* 





1TI, 652-7. 

211 646-51. 

3 De Natura Deorum, 11, 40-44 ; 59-70. 
ΨΥ, 1-54. 


THE STOICS. 119 


The popular faith was supported by the Stoics on account of its 
practical value. It constituted in their judgment an effective check 
to the evil passions of humanity. But Epicureans regarded the tra- 
ditional religion as vicious in its influence upon character. The 
pernicious ethical results of the prevalent superstition touching the 
gods evoked the bitterest hostility of Lucretius. The cowardice, 
sycophancy and crime which the fear of deity engendered were suf- 
ficient, he felt, to condemn the accepted theology. With a passion- 
ate earnestness which is born of his enthusiasm for humanity he 
smites with terrific energy the false-hearted zeal which would destroy 
innocent life to appease the wrath of jealous gods. The tragic story 
of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia rouses him to a fury of denunciation.’ 
It is impossible not to sympathize with his hatred of a religion that 
could engender such wrongs. Impiety does not consist, as he de- 
clares, in rejecting but in respecting such a faith. 


Nec pretas ullast velatum saepe vidert 

Vertier ad lapidem atque omnis accedere ad aras, 
Nec procumbere humi prostratum et pandere palmas 
Ante deum delubra, nec aras sanguine multo 
Spargere quadrupedum, nec volis nectere vota, 

Sed mage pacata posse omnia mente tuert.* 


And this sentiment Epicurus expresses with great clearness: 

ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεοὺς ἀναιρῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας 
θεοῖς προσάπτων." 

It may not be amiss, however, to observe that the invocation of 
a popular deity at the beginning of his poem* by one who so fiercely 
assails conventional religion is an apparent incongruity, to explain 
- which has taxed the ingenuity of the acutest critics. 

Yhe ethical purpose of the Stoic was practically identical with 
that of the Epicurean. Consequently Lucretius finds little occasion of 
conflict with his chief philosophic rivals on this score. He does, 





11, 80-101. 

2V, 1196-1201. 

3 Diogenes Laertius, X, 123. 
ἘΦ 1-40. 


120 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 


however, arraign the followers of Zeno somewhat sharply on the 
ground of their doctrine of the apathy of the wise man. Stoicism 
required the utter suppression of the emotions for the attainment of 
virtue. Ideally the wise man is devoid of anger, fear, envy, shame, 
care, pity; he is exempt from all passions, appetites, enthusiasms. 
Emotions are perturbations of mental equilibrium. If permitted to 
continue they finally develop into incurable diseases of the soul.? 
The wise man, therefore, must be simply emotionless. Virtue is 
apathy. φασὶ δὲ Kal ἀπαθῆ εἶναι τὸν σοφὸν, διὰ τὸ ἀνέμπτωτον.; Right 
reason, which is another name for philosophy, will enable men 
to reach this estate. With such teaching Lucretius takes issue. 
Reason, he admits, will achieve much, but it will never altogether 
obliterate a man’s distinctive characteristics. 


Sic hominum genus est. Quamvis doctrina politos 
Constitual pariter quosdam, tamen ila relinquil 
Naturae cutusque animti vestigia prima. 

Nec radicttus evelli mala posse pulandumst, 

Quin prochvius hic iras decurrat ad acris, 

Lille metu citius paulo templetur, at ile 

Terhus accipiat quaedam clementius aequo. 

Inque alus rebus multis differe necessest 

Naturas hominum varias moresque sequacis; 
Quorum ego nunc nequeo caecas exponere causas, 
Nec reperire figuraltum tol nomina quot sunt 
Principis, unde haec orttur variania rerum.* 


At the same time a life truly god-like is possible to the philos- 
opher. So taught Epicurus, the master. 


ταῦτα οὖν καὶ τὰ τούτοις συγγενῆ μελέτα πρὸς σεαυτὸν ἡμέρας Kal νυκτὸς πρός 
4 o a 207 wn? > 9 
[τε] τὸν ὅμοιον σεαυτῴ, καὶ οὐδέποτε οὔθ᾽ ὕπαρ οὔτ᾽ ὄναρ διαταραχθήσῃ, ζήσεις 
δὲ ὡς θεὸς ἐν ἀνθρώποις. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἔοικε θνητῴ ζῴῳ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἀθανάτοις 
ἀγαθοῖς." 





1 Diogenes Laertius, VII, 115. 
οὐδεν BEF. 

STII, 307-18. 

* Diogenes Laertius, X, 135. 





vam dis degere vitam.' 











f 
i 
> 5 
ma ξ 
= 
x 
= =. 4 
ἧς Sas ΩΣ 
Sie he 5 

















ies 
Sry FR 








YC 31499 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 


BERKELEY 


Return to desk from which borrowed. | 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 





7 Jan’52WKA 
gDec SILU 


20Apr’594 J 


REC'D LD 
APR 17 1958 





bn 


LIBRARY USE 
JUN 1 11960 


yun 11 98 


Ἰ ὶ ἐ Μεθ 
REC’D LD 


FEB 28 1962 


REC'D LD 





LD 21—95m-—11,’50 (2877816) 476 


JyMUNLO 255 FM 





DEC 19 1979 


eco. cine DEC 1 8/9 








